Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKERin the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Pontypridd and Rhondda Joint Water Board Bill [Lords],

Southern Railway Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Clydebank Burgh Extension, etc., Bill,

As amended, considered:

Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

King's Consent signified; Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Uckfield Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords],

As amended, to he considered upon Friday.

Bethlem Hospital Rill [Lords],

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

Boothferry Bridge Bill [Lords],

Head a Second time, and committed.

—
Exports from United Kingdom.
Exports from U.S.A.
Exports from Germany.





£1,000
£1,000
£1,000


Annual Average for
5 years ending 1908
…
37,454
13,534
26,208


5 years ending 1913
…
46,572
23,139
40,827


5 years ending 1924
…
80,815
70,706
27,461*


Year 1924

…
74,548
40,654
29,122


*Average for 1923 and 1924; figures for1920 2 not available.

INVISIBLE EXPORTS AND IMPORTS.

Mr. BASIL PETO: 3 and 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1), will state on what grounds, in estimating invisible exports, the net national income from shipping was raised from £115,000,000 in 1923 to £130,000,000 in 1924; the net income from overseas investments from

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

STEEL MANUFACTURES (EXPORTS).

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the average exports of steel manufactures during the past two decades from this country, Germany, and the United States?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The answer contains a table of figures, and I will, therefore, with the permission of my hon. and gallant Friend, have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The conditions of export trade during the War years were so abnormal that I propose to give my hon. and gallant Friend figures for the five-year periods ending 1908, 1913 and 1924, and for the year 1924.

Comparative figures for the countries specified, distinguishing steel, are not available. The following table shows the average annual value of the exports of iron and steel and manufactures thereof from the United Kingdom, the U.S.A., and Germany during the periods specified above:

£50,000,000 in 1923 to £155,000,000 in 1924; and commissions from £30,000,000 in 1923 to £40,000,000 in 1924:

(2) whether, in calculating the balance of trade, the Board of Trade takes any account of invisible imports as well as invisible, exports; and whether he can give any estimate of invisible imports for the years 1923 and 1924, respectively?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Reasons for estimating the net income arising abroad from various sources, at higher figures in 1924 than in 1923, were set out with some fullness in the article in the Board of Trade Journal of 29th January last, in which the figure's were first published, I am sending a copy of the article to my hon. Friend, All the figures given are estimated balances of credit items over debit items of the same class.

DEMOBILISED SOLDIERS' PAY RECORDS.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 5.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, why pay records showing a credit balance due to demobilised soldiers are destroyed after three years, thus making it impossible to pay the legitimate claims of men who may, owing to absence abroad or some other reason, have been prevented from making earlier claims?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): The reasons for the destruction of soldiers' pay documents, after having been kept for the three years' period prescribed under the provisions of the Public Records Office Act, were explained by my right hon. Friend in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Darwen (Sir F. Sanderson) on the 24th February last. A record is, however, kept of any credit balance outstanding and not paid owing to the man's whereabouts being unknown. It is not the practice to refuse a man's legitimate claim to his credit balance which would have been paid at the time had his whereabouts been known. If the hon. and gallant Member has any particular case in mind and will let me have details, I will have it inquired into, but. he will understand that my reply refers solely to credit balances on men's accounts, and not to a fresh claim for emoluments which, if admissible, should have been made years ago.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that I have sent him specific cases, and that he has replied to me to the effect that the man might have had the amount owing to him or might not, but that, owing to the fact that the case is three years old, the records have been destroyed, and, there-
fore, it is not possible to verify whether the balance is truly owing or not?

Captain KING: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at my answer, he will realise that, if a man had a credit three years ago, his papers would have been kept to show it, but no such record is here in these cases.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the answer he gives me now does not tally with the answer he gave me by post a few days ago?

Captain KING: I do not think there is any difference in principle.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

EXPLOSIVES (NEWSPAPER STATEMENTS).

Mr. JOHNSTON: 10.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the allegations made by the "Sunday Mail" newspaper, of Glasgow, that it has information of secret dumps of explosives to be used by revolutionaries in the event of a coal stoppage in Scotland; if he is aware that this newspaper declares that the railway junction at Portobello, the bridge over the Forth at Alloa, and Polmadie junction are to be specially attacked; and that it knows the man who is in charge of a formidable collection of these explosives for an illegal purpose in Lanarkshire; whether in the public interest he has instructed the police to inquire into the accuracy or otherwise of these statements; and, if the statements are unfounded, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I have seen the article referred to, which contains the statements mentioned by the hon. Member. Police inquiries have been made, but no information confirmatory of these statements has been obtained. I may add that it is the duty of any person possessing information of criminal purposes to communicate it to the proper authorities.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman unable to take any steps against newspapers that publish fabrications of this kind, which are likely to excite grave public feeling and disorder in an industrial crisis such as that with which we are at present faced?

Sir J. GILMOUR: My answer is that no confirmatory evidence has yet been obtained.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman pursuing his inquiries at the source from which he is likely to obtain any such evidence, if such evidence be in existence?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir.

GLASGOW BOUNDARIES BILL.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 11.
asked the Undersecretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he can now give an estimate of the costs incurred by the local authorities interested in the promotion of or opposition to the Glasgow Boundaries Bill; and whether he can promote legislation to have such inquiries in future held in the district concerned?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have no information on which such an estimate could be framed. With regard to the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given to a similar question which he put on the 26th May.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ROAD FUND GRANTS.

Mr. HURD: 12.
asked the Minister of Transport how much has been allotted from the Road Fund for the relief of unemployment; and whether this diversion has now entirely ceased?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): Under the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, it is provided that the Minister, in assisting works of road improvement and construction, shall have regard to the general state and prospects of employment. In present circumstances it has, therefore, been arranged that certain programmes of work shall be expedited, and it is estimated that the total Road Fund contribution to all works so authorised will amount approximately to £34,000,000. I would, however, point out that no works have been authorised under this policy unless they have an immediate traffic value. I am, therefore, unable to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that there has been any diversion of moneys from the Fund for its legitimate purpose.

Mr. HURD: Is it not a fact that money spent in this way for the purpose of relieving unemployment secures only something like 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. efficiency, and that, therefore, the real object which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind is not being fulfilled?

Colonel ASHLEY: I cannot for a moment agree with the percentages put forward by my hon. Friend.

Colonel GRETTON: Is the whole of this £34,000,000 for work done in anticipation of future requirements owing to unemployment?

Colonel ASHLEY: It is for works in anticipation of work that ought to be done as soon as possible. It is being done now, and has been done in the past, because of unemployment, without waiting for the normal time, which would be later.

MINING DISPUTE (PAMPHLET DISTRIBUTION).

Mr. BARKER: 50.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that on 9th July, 1925, an applicant for employment at Cardiff Employment Exchange was sent to Newbridge, Monmouthshire, to distribute pamphlets printed by the Tudor Printing Works, Cardiff: that these pamphlets were issued in the interest of the South Wales coalowners on the present situation in the mining industry; and will he see that Employment Exchanges are not used for this purpose?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): Inquiry is being made, and I. will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I have ascertained the facts. Assuming, however, that the vacancy was one for bona fide employment, I do not think the Exchange could have refused to deal with it, for the reason suggested in the question.

Mr. BARKER: Is it in the interests of industry to use a Government Department in the interests of one side of a dispute?

Mr. BETTERTON: As far as the Ministry of Labour is concerned, the matter is entirely one of employment, and exactly the same conditions would be applied either to the owners or to the Miners' Federation.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Supposing a person of that kind refused the employment, would he have been deprived of benefit?

Mr. BETTERTON: That is a hypothetical question.

YOUNG PERSONS.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 51.
asked the Minister of Labour how many young persons per annum attain the employable age; and whether he has any means of estimating how many of them fail to find employment?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have no definite information as to the number of juveniles who become available for employment each year, but some indication is given by figures which have been supplied to me by my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Education and the Secretary for Scotland.
In Great Britain during the year 1922–3, 653,300 boys and girls left school for employment, including employment at home. I regret that I have no means of making a reliable estimate of the total number of juveniles leaving school in any year who fail to secure employment.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the hon. Member obtain reports from the juvenile employment committees on this matter?

Mr. BETTERTON: We do receive reports from the juvenile employment committees.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR TRAFFIC.

MOTOR TAX REVENUE.

Mr. BETHEL: 14.
asked the Minister of Transport the amount paid into the Road Fund for 1924 in respect to motor licences; how much of that amount was allocated to Lancashire; and what percentage this sum represents to the total receipts for that year?

Colonel ASHLEY: The total payments into the Exchequer on account of the Motor Tax revenue during the calendar year 1924 aggregated £15,436,000. This sum however, is subject to certain prior statutory charges, and does not represent the amount available for grants. The grants made to local authorities in Lancashire for the year ended 31st March last amounted to £1,134,332, which represents 7.35 per cent. of the gross revenue for the year 1924.

MOTOR OMNIBUSES (PNEUMATIC TYRES).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 13.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in order to prevent the constant taking up and re-surfacing of streets in the London area, he is considering the introduction of legislation making it compulsory within a definite period of time for all motor omnibuses to be fitted with pneumatic tyres?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am not satisfied that it would be in the interests of public safety at the present time to introduce legislation on the lines indicated by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is it not a fact that in every other capital in Europe pneumatic tyres are fitted to motor omnibuses?

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not know, but I do know that if a pneumatic tyre burst on a two-decker omnibus there might be great danger.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

FORTH ROAD BRIDGE.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 16.
asked the Minister of Transport if any progress has been made in the negotiations regarding the projected road bridge over the Forth, at Queensferry?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am not aware that any developments have occurred since the local authorities failed to accept the offer of a 75 per cent. grant from the Road Fund towards the cost of the preliminary investigations concerning this project.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

EX-SERVICE MEN (NIGHT TELEPHONISTS).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 17.
asked the Postmaster-General how many unemployed ex-service men have recently been engaged through London Employment Exchanges to receive a six weeks' course of training as night telephone operators?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): During the last three months 140 unemployed ex-service men have been engaged through the London Employment Exchanges for training and employment as night telephone operators.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 18.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that ex-service men, after training and passing an efficiency test as night telephone operators, are being employed on part-time nightwork at London telephone exchanges at the rate of 1s. 2d. per hour; that their earnings vary from 12s. to £1 2s. per week; that they are debarred from receiving unemployment benefit and that the guardians are called upon to grant them out-door relief; and will he make full investigation into the conditions of employment of these men, with a view to enabling them to work sufficient hours to earn a living wage without being forced upon the Poor Law?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am aware that men employed in the London telephone service are being paid at the hourly rate stated. Their attendances are only for two or three hours in the evening (usually after 8 p.m.), and there does not appear to be any available work which can be added. The posts are intended to be filled by persons who have other part-time employment or other means of livelihood; but it is not practicable, in present circumstances, to refuse to employ candidates who are otherwise unemployed. As I promised last night, I will examine the matter further.

Mr. MARCH: When these men are taken on, are inquiries made as to whether they have other part-time employment to fill up their time?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I must ask for notice of that question.

DAMAGED WIRES (LIABILITY).

Colonel DAY: 20.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that in a recent case in the County Court, Northallerton, the owner of a garage over which telephone and telegraph wires passed was held liable for the cost of replacement of wires damaged as the result of a fire on his premises, it is the practice of his Department to hold owners of land and/or houses who grant wayleave for wires, posts, etc., responsible for any damage to the telephone and telegraph wires; and, if so, as the wires are erected for the convenience and use of the public, whether he will issue instructions that in future owners of land and/or houses shall not be held liable for the cost of
replacement in the event of damage not due to wilful action on their part?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The answer to the question is in the negative. In the particular case to which the hon. Member refers, the wives were in position under statutory powers.

AIR MAILS.

Colonel DAY: 21.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will consider causing facilities for all air-mail rates to be more extensively advertised than at present, and will he consider the advisability of supplying air stamps to the values of 2d., 3d., and 4d., such issues to be valid for air-mail letters only?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The existing arrangements for giving publicity to the facilities afforded by air mails will shortly be supplemented by a poster in colour. I shall be glad to consider any suggestion which the hon. Member may care to send me. The blue labels issued free of charge are found to be much more suitable for the purpose of distinguishing letters intended for conveyance by air than a special postage stamp.

WIRELESS EXPERIMENTAL SENDING LICENCES.

Captain BENN: asked the Postmaster-General what scale of charges he proposes to lay down for transmitting licences under the new Bill, and whether he can give any undertaking that the scale will not be exceeded in the future?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The fees for experimental sending licencee were reduced some months ago, and the charges now made are an initial fee of 10s. and an annual fee of £l where the power authorised does not exceed 10 watts, and an initial fee of £1 and an annual fee of £2 where the power exceeds 10 watts. The hon. and gallant Member will not expect me to give a pledge that these fees shall never be increased. I can, however, repeat the assurance which I gave in debate that no alteration is at present contemplated.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

TUBERCULOSIS.

Mr. LAWSON: 23.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many awards of pension
have been made to men suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis as the result of war service; what is the number of men suffering from this disability at present in receipt of pension; whether he can state the average duration of the life of a pensioner suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis from the date of the award of pension until death; and the number of pensioners who have been cured of pulmonary tuberculosis by treatment administered by the local health authorities?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the question is not available, as the earlier records of the Ministry do not distinguish pulmonary tuberculosis from other chest complaints. During the last 5½ years, however, approximately 14,000 cases have been admitted to compensation in respect of disablement arising from this disease. The number of men in receipt of pension for pulmonary tuberculosis at the present time is, approximately, 36,500. I regret that I have no information regarding the last two parts of the question.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give any information as to the very large number of ex-service men who are suffering from tuberculosis but whose cases have been proved not to be attributable to war service?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I cannot at the moment say what the numbers are, but, obviously, those men have their right of appeal. The explanation must be that the disease was not contracted on active service.

Mr. MORRISON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the great difficulty these men have, who develop tuberculosis two or three years after the War was finished, is to prove the connection with war service?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: We do our best to assist a man but, obviously, we must connect up the fact of the tuberculosis with the War service.

Mr. GILLETT: 26.
asked the Minister of Pensions if instructions have been sent to tuberculosis officers to intimate to their ex-service patients, who have been under treatment for periods of from
three to six years to get light work; and whether, seeing that some patients, who have been so informed, are advanced cases of tuberculosis, and that with so many unemployed it is impossible for such ex-service men to secure the light work ordered, he will withdraw these instructions?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: It would not be competent to the Ministry of Pensions to issue instructions to tuberculosis officers regarding the medical treatment of cases under their care, and no such instructions have been issued.

SANATORIUM TREATMENT.

Mr. LAWSON: 24.
asked the Minister of Pensions what is the number of pensioners in receipt of pension at 100 per cent. following a course of sanatorium treatment; and whether he will consider the desirability of granting the special rate of 100 per cent. to all men discharged from sanatoria irrespective of its being a first, second, or third course of sanatorium treatment?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: About 10,000 men are in receipt of pension at the rate of 100 per cent. in respect of total disablement due to pulmonary tuberculosis; but I regret that I am unable to say how many of these fall under the special arrangements for men who have completed a course of sanatorium treatment. With regard to the second part of the question, my right hon. Friend is in agreement with the reply given by his predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Bromwich, to a similar question on the 31st July, 1924, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

FUNERAL EXPENSES.

Mr. GILLETT: 25.
asked the Minister of Pensions if his attention has been directed to hardship often inflicted upon the next-of-kin of deceased ex-service men, in view of the fact that the full grant for funeral expenses is only paid in those cases where the undertaker is on the Minister's list; and whether he will state the reason for having a special list of undertakers?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The normal grant towards funeral expenses is a maximum of £7 10s., having been raised to this amount from the original figure of £3. The grant is payable wherever
relatives desire, as in many cases they do, to make their own arrangements for the funeral of the ex-service man. The Ministry was, however, empowered some four years ago to arrange centrally contract terms for funerals, and the more favourable terms so secured are, of course, in the interests of the relatives. In districts where this system is in operation, it is entirely at the discretion of the relatives which alternative they adopt.

JURORS (ILLNESS IN COURT).

Sir ROBERT GOWER: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience caused by the illness of a juror during the progress of a case tried before the Common Serjeant at the Central Criminal Court; and whether he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation providing such reform in our jury system as will obviate the necessity in such cases of a new jury being sworn and the trial being commenced de novo?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): My right hon. Friend proposes to move a Clause to meet this point, upon the Report stage of the Criminal Justice Bill.

BALTIC STATES (HARBOUR DREDGING).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 30.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he has any information regarding dredging operations for the improvement of the harbours in the Baltic States of Esthonia, Latvia and Lithuania; which harbours are being so improved; and whether any of the work has been secured by British firms?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have no information as to any dredging operations at the ports referred to other than the ordinary dredging for the maintenance of the fairways. The latter part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (SALARIES).

Captain GARRO-JONES: 31.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the descriptive titles of the five highest paid offices in the administration of the British Empire Exhibition, together with the aggregate amount of the salaries paid to their holders?

Mr. SAMUEL: I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by giving the descriptive titles of the five highest paid officers in the administration of the British Empire Exhibition. As regards the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave the hon. Member on the 13th July.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Would it not be useful, in view of the fact that this House is likely to be called upon to pay these salaries, if the hon. Gentleman gave us, not the individual amount, but the total?

Mr. SAMUEL: I do not think any useful purpose would be served. The officers of the exhibition are not employed by the Government, and therefore they are not public servants. It would be unwarrantable on my part, and, what is more, as the question has been put once or twice before, I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to say the board of management and the Treasury official who deals with these things are perfectly satisfied with the salaries that are paid.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Although they are not employed by the Government, they are likely to be paid out of public money, and in that case have we not a right to ask what the total salaries are?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The House of Commons have undertaken a very heavy guarantee. Surely we can have this simple information.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister has answered.

Captain GARRO-JONES: On a point of Order. May I submit that this House guarantees certain sums to the British Empire Exhibition on the express understanding that the Minister should have the right to ask the board of management for information on these very points.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is hardly a point of Order for me. It is entirely in the discretion of the Minister.

LAND DRAINAGE.

Mr. FENBY: 32.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government is prepared to carry out, over a term of years, necessary works of land drainage; and whether he can now definitely announce the action which the Government is contemplating?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Edward Wood): I have been asked to reply. The question referred to by the hon. Member is at present under consideration.

GOLD IMPORTS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 33.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has figures of the imports of gold during the last three months; and how much of this gold was sold by the Russian Government?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I can add nothing to the information published in the monthly trade returns, which show that out of £9,301,000 of gold imported in the three months April, May and June, £2,182,000 came from Russia.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has any further gold come from Russia to this country?

INCOME TAX (REPAYMENT CLAIMS).

Sir CHARLES OMAN: 34.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will recommend the disuse of the Income Tax rebate official form R41–3, which summons Income Tax payers to appear in person before the inspector of taxes, bringing with them share and stock certificates and other documents relative to their income, this form being at the present time sent to many persons, including the aged and infirm; and whether he will substitute a form permitting them to submit evidence from
their bankers or solicitors to the same effect?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would invite the attention of my hon. Friend to the statement made on this subject in the course of the Debate on the Finance Bill in Committee and to the reply given on the 19th June to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the statement and of the reply.

Sir C. OMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that this question is quite distinct from the parallel question to which he has referred, and will he give attention to the possibility of varying the form of the official notice?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will look into it.

RUSSIAN REFUGEES.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 38.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether there is any expenditure in the Estimates this year, or whether it is intended to undertake any expenditure, on behalf of any refugees from Russia; and, if so, for what purposes is it intended to be devoted?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): No provision has been made in the Estimates for this year for direct expenditure on behalf of the refugees referred to, nor is there any intention of undertaking any such expenditure. I should add however, that the Budget of the International Labour Organisation for 1925 includes a sum of about 150,000 Swiss francs for work in connection with Russian refugees in various countries, and of this sum Great Britain provides about 11 per cent.

PERPETUAL PENSION.

Mr. WHITELEY: 39.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of perpetual pensions paid by the State, giving the annual amount and the date from which the pensions started?

Mr. GUINNESS: The only perpetual pension remaining is that of £5,000 per annum granted by Parliament in 1806 to Earl Nelson.

POLITICAL OFFICERS' PENSION ACT.

Mr. WHITELEY: 40.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of pensions now being paid under the Political Officers' Pension Act?

Mr. GUINNESS: None, Sir.

CIVIL SERVANTS (WAR SERVICE CLAIMS).

Mr. HARDIE: 41.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is prepared to exercise his discretion in favour of Mr. J. D. Johnston, tax officer, Glasgow second district, who is a claimant under the reassessment of balance of civil pay of certain civil servants who served with His Majesty's forces during the Great War, in view of the fact that Mr. Johnston's failure to attest was solely due to confusion on the part of the military authorities owing to their failure to transfer certain papers from Darlington to Aberdeen?

Mr. GUINNESS: As I have previously stated, the judgments of the Court of Appeal in the cases of Pidduck and others are not applicable to persons who were deemed to have been enlisted under the Military Service Acts. Mr. Johnston was so enlisted, and I regret that it is impossible for me to exercise a discretion in his favour.

Mr. HARDIE: Since it is no fault of Mr. Johnston's that he is placed in the position he is in now, and it can be clearly shown by his papers that it is the fault of the Department, is there not some way in which justice can go out to this man?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am afraid it would be impossible to go into the motives why people were enlisted and whether they made any attempt to join before the Military Service Act. As this case has throughout been argued on the legal interpretation, I am afraid it is impracticable for us to go beyond it.

Mr. HARDIE: Seeing that the papers are in existence, and that the proof he gives as to their being at a certain point on a certain date at which the man was at another point, and the time the Government took in getting the papers for the man took him beyond the date—

Mr. GUINNESS: I am afraid if we must go beyond the legal claim we shall have a very large crop of hard cases with which it would be impossible to deal.

Mr. HARDIE: Is there going to be no moral sense at all in dealing with a case like this? It is an absolutely clear case where a man has been "done down," to put it in vulgar language, but it is no more vulgar than the act that has taken place, and I hope the Treasury is going to do something.

Mr. AMMON: 42.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that professional ex-service men employed in the Civil Service are not allowed to count their period with the colours for Civil Service pension purposes; that civil servants who joined the fighting forces temporarily during the War are permitted to count the period of such service for Civil Service pension purposes; that policemen and several other categories of public servants who join the Civil Service are allowed their previous public service for Civil Service pension purposes; and that the claim of the professional ex-service men was favourably reported on by the Ward Committee as long ago as 1906; and whether he will now take steps to grant the claim?

Mr. GUINNESS: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for the Hornsey Division on the 24th February last.

Mr. AMMON: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's unsatisfactory answer, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

CHINA (SHANGHAI DISTURBANCES).

Mr. TREVELYAN: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received the report of all the evidence given at the inquest on the victims of the Shanghai shootings, and whether he is prepared to publish it?

The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): No official report of the evidence has yet reached me.

Mr. TREVELYAN: Is the Foreign Office asking for it?

Mr. McNEILL: We assume that the evidence will be sent to us. His Majesty's representative at Pekin has been instructed by telegraph to send it, if he has not already done so.

Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish it when it is received?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say whether or not that will be done.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet been informed of the proposals of the Commission appointed from Pekin to inquire into the Shanghai disturbances; and how soon their Report will be made public?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot as yet add anything to the answer given on the 16th July to a question by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.

Mr. BECKETT: 45.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs whether he now has the full report of the evidence taken before the Shanghai Mixed Court on 30th May and 1st June last; whether he intends to publish it; and what action, if any he proposes to take?

Mr. McNEILL: The full report of the proceedings has not yet been received. Until it is received by His Majesty's Government, I cannot make any statement as to publication or as to what action it will be desirable to take.

—
Death Rate (Deaths per 1,000 population).
Infant Mortality (Deaths per 1,000 births).


1913.
1923.
1913.
1923.


England and Wales
…
…
13.8
11 .6
108
69


Scotland
…
…
15.5
12.9
110
79


Northern Ireland
…
…
18.0
14.7
107
77


Irish Free State
…
…
16.7
13.3
93
66


Denmark
…
…
12.5
11.3
94
85


Finland
…
…
16.1
13.8
113
95


Hungary
…
…
23.5
19.2
201
186


Germany
…
…
15.0
13.9
151
132


Netherlands
…
…
12.4
1.9
91
57


Belgium
…
…
14.6
13.0
130
107


France
…
…
17.6
17.0
112
96


Spain
…
…
22.1
21.2
155
148


Australia
…
…
10.7
9.9
72
61


New Zealand
…
…
9.5
9.0
59
44


Union of South Africa (Europeans only)
10.2
9.8
97
74

Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to secure a full report? How is it that six weeks after every newspaper has had it the Foreign Office has not got it?

Mr. McNEILL: The reports to which the hon. Member refers which have appeared in the newspapers are, as far as I am aware, partial. I do not know how far they are accurate. We are assuming that the evidence will be sent to this country; but as there are no British subjects involved in the proceedings it is not quite certain. In order to make certain, we have instructed His Majesty's representative to send us the evidence, if he has not already done so.

MORTALITY STATISTICS.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 46.
asked the Minister of Health if he can furnish statistics as to the general death rate and of infantile mortality in this and the other principal countries for 1924 and for 1913, respectively?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): Statistics for 1924 are at present available for very few countries, and accordingly I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures required for 1923 and 1913, respectively.

Following are the figures:

POOR RATES, WESTMINSTER, WANDSWORTH AND POPLAR.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 47.
asked the Minister of Health the amount raised by rates for Poor Law purposes in the city of Westminister and the boroughs of Wandsworth and Poplar during the year ended 31st March last, and the amounts expended on Poor Law relief by the guardians in each of those areas during the same period?

Sir K. WOOD: As the answer is somewhat long and involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the information:

The City of Westminster and the Metropolitan Borough of Poplar are coterminous with the City of Westminster Union and the Parish of Poplar Borough, respectively. The Metropolitan Borough of Wandsworth is comprised in the Wandsworth Union, which also includes the Metropolitan Borough of Battersea.

The following particulars, which are for the year ended 31st March, 1925, relate to the union areas:

(1) The amounts received by the guardians from rates towards their expenses (including Poor Law expenses, precepts of joint Poor Law authorities, and other expenses, such as those connected with vaccination, valuation and registration) were:



£


City of Westminster Union
1,255,480


Parish of Poplar Borough
448,654


Wandsworth Union
498,685

(2) The amounts expended by the guardians on the relief of the poor and purposes connected therewith were:



£


City of Westminster Union (including £23,260 contributed, under precept, to the managers of the West London School District)
240,887


Parish of Poplar Borough (including £72,129 contributed, under precept, to the managers of the Poplar and Stepney Sick Asylum District)
910,874





£


Wandsworth Union (including £27,742 contributed, under precept, to the managers of the North Surrey School District)
446,167

The above-mentioned expenditure does not include any sums contributed by the guardians, under precept, to the managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District, whose expenditure covers public health as well as purely Poor Law expenses:

The amounts of these precepts were:



£


City of Westminster Union
255,959


Parish of Poplar Borough
29,124


Wandsworth Union
105,108

In the case of the City of Westminster and Wandsworth Unions, the expenditure also excludes payments made by the guardians to the Metropolitan Common Fund.

HOUSING, SOUTHWARK,

Colonel DAY: 48.
asked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that in the Borough of Southwark there is no land available for the erection of dwellings for the working people, that many houses have been condemned, and that poverty and overcrowding exists to a greater extent than in any other London borough, he will make a special grant to enable the borough to clear some of the slum areas and erect houses in which workpeople could live in the vicinity of their employment?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend will be glad to consider any schemes submitted to him by the London County Council or the borough council for the clearance or reconstruction of areas in Southwark, but he has no power to promise any special grant over and above that for which provision is made by existing legislation.

Colonel DAY: Will the hon. Member seek those powers, seeing that Southwark is one of the most congested areas in the whole country?

Sir K. WOOD: I do not think I can seek powers for one special place.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL (SCAVENGERS, FINSBURY).

Mr. GILLETT: 49.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Finsbury Borough Council are proposing to hand over the collection and disposal of house refuse to a contractor, and that this will involve the discharge of about 50 men from the service of the council and their removal from the council's superannuation scheme; and whether, as these men have been exempted from payment of National Insurance Insurance by reason of their service with the council, he will say upon what conditions they would qualify for benefits under the Widows, Orphans and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has no information as to the first part of the question, and the second part appears to rest on a misapprehension. No certificate of exception from national health insurance has been issued to the Finsbury Borough Council, and my right hon. Friend is informed that the council has duly paid health insurance contributions for the men referred to in the question. They will, therefore, be able to qualify for benefits under the Contributory Pensions Bill on the ordinary conditions applicable to insured persons. I may add that even if the facts were as stated by the hon. Member, the men's position under the Bill would be amply safeguarded by Regulations to be made under Clause 15 (4).

HUDSON MEMORIAL, HYDE PARK.

Mr. BASIL PETO: 53.
asked the Undersecretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the First Commissioner of Works has arranged for the early removal from its present site in Hyde Park of the Epstein bas-relief; and whether he will see that it is not re-erected in any other public place in this country?

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON (for the FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. PETO: Can the hon. Member say whether this work of art belongs to the nation and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of offering this specimen of Bolshevist so-called art to the Soviet Government of Russia?

Mr. SPEAKER: Argumentative adjectives are out of order as supplementary questions.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Will the hon. Member say whether he has had an opportunity of seeing the indignation of the public at what has been called a work of art in the midst of an otherwise charming bird sanctuary?

Mr. BECKETT: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the public consider his artistic taste much better than that of the hon. Member.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: We had a good many communications in the first instance condemning this memorial tablet. We also received others almost lyrical in their praise. During the last three or four weeks we have had no communications.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not a fact that the First Commissioner of Works has not received any communication during the last few weeks, because it was understood that he was making inquiries as to the feelings of the public? He can surely have no mistake as to what is that feeling!

Mr. SPEAKER: Evidently there are two feelings in the House.

SUPERPHOSPHATES (INQUIRY).

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Report of the Committee of Inquiry on Superphosphates has been considered and a decision arrived at; and, if not, when a decision may be expected?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not at present in a position to make any statement on this matter.

SPECIAL CONSTABLES, LONDON.

Mr. MONTAGUE (by Private Notice): asked the Home Secretary whether any, and, if so, what steps are being taken to recruit and swear in special constables
in London on the ground that an industrial emergency may shortly be anticipated?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: My right hon. Friend has been unavoidably detained. He has been very anxious to answer this question, and if my hon. Friend will put it down for to-morrow, my right hon. Friend will reply.

Mr. MONTAGUE (Later): As the Home Secretary has now come into the House, perhaps, I might now ask for an answer to my question.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think, perhaps, that it would be better to take it to-morrow. It is not the usual practice to have a question answered after Questions to the Speaker.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Might I respectfully point out that I understand that the Home Secretary is willing to answer me, and it is a rather urgent question.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that it would be better answered to-morrow. It would be a departure from the usual practice to answer it now.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will state now what business is to be taken on Friday next; and whether he can now make any announcement as to when the Government will make a statement on their shipbuilding programme?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): In regard to the second question, I cannot give a reply to-day. In reply to the first question, we propose to take the following business on Friday:
Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Bill; Report and. Third Reading.
Isle of Man (Customs) Bill; Second Reading.
Air Ministry (Cattewater Seaplane Station) Bill; Committee.
Therapeutic Substances Bill [Lords]; Committee, Report, and Third Reading.
Diseases of Animals Bill; Committee.
Telegraph [Money]; Committee.
Tithe [Money]; Committee.
Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Bill [Lords]; Second Reading.
National Library of Scotland Bill [Lords]; Second Reading.
Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Bill [Lords]; Second Reading.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to suspend the Four o'clock Rule?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, I have not thought of that, but I have tried to consult everyone's taste.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that there will on Friday be a sufficient number of his supporters here to prevent the House being counted out, as it was Friday week?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is why I put down such a variety of business.

Ordered:
That the Proceedings on the Widows. Orphans, and Old Ago Contributory Pensions Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)"—[The Prime Minister.]

STANDING COMMITTEES.

SPEAKER'S APPEAL TO MEMBERS.

Sir ROBERT SANDERS: May I ask. Sir, whether your attention has been directed to an incident which occurred in Standing Committee D yesterday, and-if so, whether you could net see your way to make a statement to the House as to the authority of the Chairman of a Standing Committee with regard to Members of the Committee, and as to the maintenance of Order on that Committee?

Mr. SPEAKER: My intention has been directed to what occurred in Standing Committee D yesterday. I am sure that the House will feel that I should not say anything about that particular incident: but I shall confine what I have to say to the general question.
The House has entrusted important and difficult duties to the Chairmen of its Standing Committees, and I feel sure that it expects, and rightly expects, the Members of those Committees to show
to the Chairmen the same respect and deference as is shown by Committees of the Whole House to their Chairmen, and, indeed, by the House itself to its Speaker. Without such consideration, the position of a Chairman would become intolerable.
The House has retained in its own hands powers of discipline over its Members, and it is very remarkable, and I think creditable to our proceedings, that during the 40 years in which Standing Committees have been in existence, there has not been a ease, so far as I know, in which the House has been called upon to assert its authority over a Member of one of those Committees.
I would earnestly and respectfully recommend to all parties in the House the desirability of maintaining this tradition.
There is no doubt that the House has it in its power to vindicate the authority of the Chairman of a Standing Committee, but for the sake of the House itself, as well as of its Committees, I hope that such counsels will prevail as will render any such action unnecessary, and that the great traditions of the past may be maintained.

Mr. CLYNES: I think that we may safely say that, in the statement which we have heard, we recognise the customary helpfulness and guidance which have always been received from the Chair, but I would like to ask a. further question. It would appear from the Report of the proceedings referred to, that the trouble over which this question has arisen was due to the fact that the Committee upstairs had denied to it the right of deciding as to the days upon which, and the times at which it should meet. Accordingly I would like to ask you whether you can make any statement as to how in future that point may be resolved, so that Committees may know their position in this matter?

Mr. SPEAKER: The point raised by the right hon. Gentleman is not governed by any Standing Order of the House. It is a question of the practice and procedure of the Committee upstairs. There is a body, the Chairmen's Panel, which, I think, deals with questions of that kind. To my mind, it would be undesirable that the House should lay down any Standing Order or or any Rule on this question. If there is some doubt as to the practice, or a desire to determine the practice, I would
suggest then that the matter should be brought before the Chairmen's Panel for consideration.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (CIVIL SERVICES) BILL [Lords].

Head the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 232.]

HONOURS (PREVENTION OF ABUSES) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 233.]

NATIONAL LIBRARY OF SCOTLAND BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 230.]

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 231.]

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed [Bill 229.]

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP F).

Sir PARK GOFF reported from the Committee on Group F of Private Bills; That the parties opposing the Mersey Tunnel Bill [Lords] had stated that the evidence of William E. Langshaw, Manager, Birkenhead Corporation Ferries, was essential to their case and,
it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said William E. Langshaw do attend the said Committee on Thursday next, at eleven of the clock, and for so long as the said Bill shall be under the consideration of the Committee; and that the said William E. Langshaw do bring with him the Report, dated 18th March, 1920, of the Technical Sub-Committee of the Cross River Traffic Committee, appointed 11th February, 1920, to Report on the question of improving the facilities with regard to Cross River Traffic, and the Report, dated 26th March, 1920, by the said William E. Langshaw to the Chairman and Members of the Cross River Traffic Committee.

Ordered, That William E. Langshaw do attend the Committee on Group F of Private Bills on Thursday next, at Eleven of the clock, and during the consideration of the Mersey Tunnel Bill [Lords], and do produce the said documents.

AUTHORS' (LAW OF LIBEL) PROTECTION BILL,

"to protect authors and others in respect of vexatious proceedings for alleged libellous, blasphemous, seditious, or obscene matter in literary, dramatic, and artistic works," presented by Sir WILLIAM BULL; supported by Mr. Sidney Webb and Sir Martin Conway; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 234.]

BILLS REPORTED.

Mansfield Corporation Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Oldham Corporation Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Dramatic and Musical Performers' Protection Bill, without Amendment.

Theatrical Employers Registration Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Royal Exchange Assurance Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

THEATRICAL EMPLOYERS REGISTRATION BILL [Lords],

Lords Amendments to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed, [Bill 235.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Colonel GRETTON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Mining Industry (Welfare Fund) Bill: Mr. Cape, Captain Cazalet, Mr. Clowes, Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, Mr. Duncan Graham-, Captain Arthur Hope, Sir Clement Kinloch-Cooke, Colonel Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, and Sir Beddoe Rees.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Colonel GRETTON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Home Counties (Music and Dancing) Licensing Bill): Mr. Ernest Alexander, Sir Alfred Butt, Mr. Cassels, Mr. Dunnico, Mr. Groves, Major Hore-Belisha, Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson, Mr. Meller, Sir Herbert Nield, and Mr. Rhys.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.

Order for Consideration of Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill, as amended, read.

Ordered,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clauses 8, 30 and 39, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Neville Chamberlain, as Amendments to be moved on re-committal."— [Sir Kingsley Wood.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 8.—(Statutory conditions as to old age pensions.)

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I beg to move, in page 7, line 31, at the end to insert a new paragraph,—
(iii) Where a person on attaining the age of sixty in the case of a man, or fifty-five in the case of a woman, had been, continuously insured for a period of ten years or since the fifteenth day of July, nineteen hundred and twelve whichever period is the shorter), condition (c) shall, if he or she so elects, apply as if, for the reference to thirty-nine contributions, there were substituted a reference to twenty-six contributions, but in such case the regulations shall not provide that the contributions shall for the purposes of that condition be deemed to have been paid in respect of any period of unemployment except unemployment owing to incapacity for work due to some specific disease or some bodily or mental disablement.
This Amendment becomes necessary in order to carry out a concession which was promised in Committee. I undertook I would move the re-committal of the Bill in order to make a provision in respect of employed persons similar to that already made in the case of voluntary contributors. The men and women concerned in this particular Amendment are elderly people—in the case of the men being of the age of 60 and in the case of the women of the age of 55—who may not be able to comply with the statutory conditions. Under this Amendment I think their position will be considerably eased. I believe the concession will meet with general approval.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I do not think that this Amendment and the Amendment which follows it in the name of the Minister of Health, need give rise to lengthy debate, but there are one or two points which we wish to elucidate in the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. The position is that under Clause 8 the contributor would lose his old age pension at 65 unless for three years prior to reaching that age he was for 39 weeks in a year either employed or genuinely seeking employment or sick. The point we raised in Committee was that a large number of elderly men through no fault of their own would fall out of these provisions. Men before reaching the ago of 65 in many cases slacken of and become intermittent. The case which I put before the Minister was the case of a waiter who was growing elderly and getting past his work and who worked only during the season and carried on some little personal occupation for the remainder of the time. Before we express our view on this Amendment we should be clear as to what it means. I understand the first Amendment gives a man in this position an option. Instead of coming under the 39 weeks condition, he can, if he wishes, come under a 26 weeks condition, towards which weeks of genuinely seeking employment do not count. In that case a man of that kind, if he can prove that for 26 weeks he was either working or sick, will be able to obtain his pension.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: indicated assent.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I think it is evident the majority of men in the position we are considering will choose the second option rather than the first. That, however, does not cover all the cases we have in mind. Many of these men will be employed, not for 26 weeks, but for 20 or 18 weeks. Am I right in assuming that the third Amendment which the Minister has put down is for the purpose of dealing with that case.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: indicated assent.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: By that Amendment a man in that position may for the few weeks that are necessary to bring him up to the 26 weeks, stamp his own card and so cover the margin.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: indicated assent.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: That being so, I think the right hon. Gentleman has met the points we made in Committee. I would point out, however, that as a result of all these Amendments and improvements, this Bill is becoming very complicated. How can we be sure, for example, that the men whom we are now considering will know at the right moment and when the choice has to be made, that they have this threefold option> To take another case, how can we be sure that the single woman will know that she can become a voluntary contributor for health, and under this Bill at the same time, and that she can go into arrears for 32 weeks out of the 52 and still retain her old age pension? In fact, how are we in this House to know what this Bill does, and answer all the questions that will be put to us? It seems to me that for the next 18 months or more Members of this House will have to be experts on widows' pensions. Can we send the letters to the Minister of Health to be answered by him? No doubt in the next six months the Ministry of Health will devise a code of regulations. I ask the Minister if, in those Regulations, it is possible to take steps in regard to special classes of contributors—not the general mass of contributors, but special classes such as these Amendments are creating—to insure that as far as possible they shall be individually notified, at the right time, of their rights and privileges under the Bill.

Major HORE-BELISHA: I wish to direct the attention of the Committee to the wording of the Amendment. The Clause provides the statutory conditions as to old age pensions, namely, that the person has been continuously insured for five years prior to the age of 65, that 104 contributions have been paid by him or in respect of him and that for the three contribution years prior to the age of 65 he had an average of 39 contributions for each year. Weeks of genuine unemployment were to count in his favour. The Amendment takes that benefit away. It says that if a man has been in employment —has been continuously insured—for 10 years, he may have the benefit of the Bill by paying a reduced number of contributions:
But in such case the regulations shall not provide that the contributions shall for the purposes of that condition be deemed to have been paid in respect of any period of unemployment except unem-
ployment owing to incapacity for work due to some specific disease or some bodily or mental disablement.
I submit that is a very grave and serious disqualification. Anybody who may have drawn health insurance benefit will get the benefit of this provision, but anybody who draws unemployment benefit ceases to get the benefit of this provision. The case which I put to the right hon. Gentleman when the Clause was under consideration in Committee was the case of Crown employés who are compulsorily superannuated at the age of 60. They may have worked assiduously from the age of 16 to the age of 60 and through no fault of their own they may be cast out of work and where there is no alternative industry then they are cast upon the unemployment fund. They were entirely ruled out of this Clause as it stood, and I admit that the Minister has done something to redress their very serious position. As the Clause stood, no servant of the Crown who did not become a voluntary contributor could possibly have got anything under this Bill, although he was the very person one would have imagined it was desired to benefit. Now the Minister says he will bring that person in provided he has been under the Health Insurance Act for a period of 10 years, but if at any period during that 10 years he has been out of work, he is not going to make him any concession whatever.
If the Committee passes this Amendment, it will be doing a very grave injustice, and I ask the Minister whether he will not consider removing from it all the words beginning with the word "but," that is to say, removing this grave and serious disqualification, which I hope the Committee will examine. The right hon. Gentleman has not gone very far. All that he has done for these men who are compulsorily superannuated at the age of 60—it applies not only to Government employés, but to others—is to let them off, I think, 13 contributions in the year. It is not a very generous concession. He is giving them about a £1 a year towards the contributions which he is taking from them in the first instance quite unjustly. I submit that it is a more worthy thing for a man to have paid his contributions from the age of 16 to the age of 60, than it is for a man to come into insurance for the first time at the age of 55, and yet a man who comes into insurance for the
first time at the age of 55 will be in a very much better position that the man under this particular Clause. I do not see why the Minister should have exacted such a long period as ten years of employment before a man can get the benefits of this scheme, and I fail to see why he should have put in that qualification, which I hope he will see his way to remove.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Really the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Major Hore-Belisha) is very unreasonable. The whole purpose of this concession was to provide for the case of the man who was intermittently employed and who, therefore, could neither make up his full number of contributions nor show that he was genuinely unemployed. If he is in that position we give him the option of the shorter period; if, on the other hand, he is employable and can show he has been genuinely seeking employment, he will have no difficulty in making up the 39 contributions. With regard to the points made by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), I think he sees we have endeavoured fully to meet the points he raised, and it is a little hard that, when we have made concessions asked for by the other side, we should then find them turning round and saying we have made the thing so complicated that nobody can understand it. That is the necessary result of trying to meet the hard cases. The more hard cases we try to meet, the more exceptions there will be in the Bill by special provisions; and the more complicated the Bill becomes, the more difficult it is to keep it in mind. That, I fully admit, but it is the inevitable result of doing what we have been asked to do by the hon. Member and his friends, and I suggest to him that, after all, we shall have the approved societies, who will make it their business to see that their members do understand all the rights and privileges which may accrue to them under the different provisions of the Bill, and that we may safely trust to them to issue to their members such warnings and notices as may be necessary to ensure that they shall not omit anything by reason of the complications of the Bill.

Mr. POTTS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what interpretation is going to be put on the phrase "genuinely
seeking employment"? Supposing a man is unemployed and he is seeking work, how many days out of the six per week is he to be deemed to be genuinely seeking work?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is an old question which, I think, has already been answered on the Committee stage. The matter has to be decided by the approved societies themselves.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Does that mean that the test of genuinely seeking employment will be the test as applied by the Employment Exchanges at present?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 30.—(Regulations.)

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 31, line 38, at the end, to insert the words
(2) Regulations under this Act may also be made providing that, subject to the prescribed conditions. Section one of the National Health Insurance (Prolongation of Insurance) Act, 1921, shall apply, and shall be deemed always to have applied, in cases where condition (b) therein mentioned is not complied with, as if for that condition there were substituted the following condition, that is to say: —
(b) that the approved society of which the insured person is a member is satisfied, or in the case of a dispute it is decided in manner provided by the Insurance Act, that during the prescribed period the insured person has, except when incapable of work by reason of some specific disease or some bodily or mental disablement, been available for but unable to obtain employment:
Provided that no person shall by virtue of any such regulation become entitled to any benefit under the Insurance Act in respect of any period before the commencement of this Act.
This is to deal with another specially hard case brought to our notice, namely, the position of certain steel and iron workers who were thrown out of work in 1920 and are, therefore, unable to comply with the conditions laid down in the Prolongation of Insurance Act. Under the new Amendment which I am moving to insert here, it is proposed to enable societies in suitable cases to waive this
contribution test, where they are satisfied that the failure to obtain employment was due to a genuine unemployment, that is to say, that the members concerned were seeking employment, but were unable to obtain it at the time.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Miss WILKINSON: On a point of Order. When you put the Question, Mr. Hope, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," does that mean that when we come to the Report stage we shall not be able to discuss these particular Clauses?

The CHAIRMAN: No; they will be open for discussion on Report. The object of putting that Question is that the Clause in which the Amendment has been inserted may be open for re-discussion, in view of the Amendment that has been made in it. When the Bill is considered on report before Mr. Speaker, the whole Bill will be open to Amendment.

CLAUSE 39.—(Consequential Amendments of Insurance Act.)

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 36, line 34, at the end, to insert the words
(4) An employed contributor who had, on attaining the age of sixty in the case of a man, or fifty-five in the case of a woman, been continuously insured for a period of ten years or since the fifteenth day of July, nineteen hundred and twelve (whichever period is the shorter), shall be entitled within such time and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed to pay contributions in respect of any period of unemployment as if he were a voluntary contributor.
This is to do what the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) suggested a, little while ago, namely, to enable these elderly contributors, if they have not been able to make up the full 26 weeks, to stamp their own cards for the missing weeks.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported.

Bill, as amended, in Committee and on re-committal, considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Contributory Pensions for widows, orphans, and persons between the ages of 65 and 70.)

Mr. SPEAKER: In connection with the Amendments on Report of this Bill, I had the advantage this morning of consultation with several representative Members, who were good enough to communicate to me the points which they wished to raise. There is a large number of Amendments, and I hope it will not be necessary to have a long discussion on each one, especially as the major points are as we get towards the later Clauses.
The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson)—in page 1, line 12, after the word "man," to insert the words
or an insured woman who is the widow of an uninsured man,
and the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson)—in page 1, line 12, after the word "man," to insert the words
or an insured woman who is the widow of an insured man,
are out of Order, as they involve a charge on the Exchequer.

Mr. DALTON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, to leave out the word "ten," and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty."
I will follow your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, and be brief, but it will not be possible while this Bill is passing through the present stage not once more to raise the question as to the amount of the pension. The purpose of the Amendment set down by hon. Members, including myself, is to increase the pension of the widow from 10s. to 20s. per week. Our arguments in favour of that have been previously marshalled, and I shall here simply draw attention to the inadequate amount proposed in the Bill, and the fact that no widow can live upon 10s. She must have that amount supplemented from elsewhere. If she has not got other sources of income she will be chargeable in some degree upon the Poor Law. That is objectionable in principle; further than that that fact will prevent one of the main objects of this Bill being carried out, namely, to lessen the burden of the rates. A further argument to which we still adhere, and which I will briefly repeat, is that this is very indefensible and unreasonable that this
pension should be so very much lower than the corresponding pension of the widow of a soldier.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
Ten shillings per week is no use at all; it will not prevent a widow having to seek the assistance of the Poor Law guardians. The money will not even, in some cases, find a house for the widow; for that shelter which most old people of that age desire to have in the shape of a home. They will have in that case to seek to live in with somebody else.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No one on this side of the House has ever said that 10s. per week was sufficient to provide for the maintenance of a widow. No one on this side has ever suggested that 20s. is sufficient for that purpose, though that appears to be the view of certain hon. Members opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then there was no point in the observations that have just been made by hon. Members opposite. As I have said in the first place, these pensions are not sufficient in themselves to enable the woman to keep a home for herself, but why should hon. Members opposite assume that everyone of these aged poor who claim the benefits under this Bill have no other resources in the world than they are going to get under the Bill? [An HON. MEMBER: "There are very few of them! "] An hon. Member says there are very few. Is that not a wide generalisation? In conversation with the Chairman of the Birmingham Board of Guardians, I was informed that he reckoned that after this Bill becomes law, no less than 25 per cent. of widows who are at present obtaining Poor Law relief from the guardians will cease to do so. That, at any rate, shows that there are some who will be placed in a position at which, with the 10s. to supplement other resources at their disposal, they will be able entirely to dispense with what they have hitherto received from the Poor Law guardians.
That is the general argument that we have put forward. These pensions are

not intended to be self-sufficient. They are intended to supplement other resources, and to stimulate saving on the part of the people so that they may make themselves independent. In conclusion, may I remind the Committee that if, as suggested, these pensions were doubled, the additional charge on the Exchequer would be £1,200,000; next year they would be £6,400,000 extra, rising, in 1930, to 10½ million pounds. In 1940 the figure would be 21 million pounds, and in 1960 32 million pounds. I may add that if we gave a widow a pension of 20s. up to the age of 70 that the logical and inevitable result would be that you would also have to increase the Old Age Pensions; therefore, you would have in addition to the millions that I have already mentioned double the whole cost of existing pensions. That shows that the thing is quite impossible and impracticable, and shows also the hollowness and unreality of the arguments that have been put forward by the other side.

Mr. SPENCER: The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman may have some relevance at some point in regard to the widows and the orphans, but I do suggest that so far as the man is concerned who has now a statutory right to a pension himself, he is not really getting value for the money paid on the ground of pension alone. I know the right hon. Gentleman must take into consideration the provision made for the wife. But what is said in respect of the married man has no value when it applies to the single man. Therefore I put it that there is some substance in what we on this side of the House say. I am quite convinced of this: that my hon. Friends here are trying to do what is quite reasonable on behalf of those they represent. I want to say just one word in passing in regard to this lower figure. No-one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that the argument as to the burden being transferred to the Exchequer is a farce, because that burden now largely falls on the rates. Therefore, from that point of view, it is a great deal of expense.

Question put, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 169; Noes, 95.

Division No. 303.]
AYES.
[4.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Balniel, Lord


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Grace, John
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Pleiou, D. P.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gretton, Colonel John
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bethell, A.
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Raine, W.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rawilnson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Blundell, F. N.
Harland, A.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brass, Captain W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Richardson, Sir P, W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Briscoe, Richard George
Haslam, Henry C.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hawke, John Anthony
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar, & Wh'by)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hilton, Cecil
Sandon, Lord


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Campbell, E. T.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Smithers, Waldron


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Christie, J. A.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Huntingfield, Lord
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hurst, Gerald B.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon Cuthbert
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Cooper, A. Duff
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cope, Major William
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Crook, C. W.
Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Loder, J. de V.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Looker, Herbert William
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Maclntyra, Ian
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Macmillan, Captain H.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Dawson, Sir Philip
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Meller, R. J.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Elveden, Viscount
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richhm'd)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Mitchell, Sir w. Lane (Streatham)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Fermoy, Lord
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wolmer, Viscount


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)


Frece, Sir Walter de
Murchison, C. K.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Gates, Percy
Nelson, Sir Frank



Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon, Sir John
Newman, Sir R. H, S. D. L. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Major Hennessy and Captain


Goff, Sir Park
Pennefather, Sir John
Margesson.


Gower, Sir Robert
Perkins, Colonel E. K.



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Fenby, T. D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Gillett, George M.
Murnin, H.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Paling, W.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Baker, Walter
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Groves, T.
Potts, John S.


Barnes, A.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barr, J.
Hardie, George D.
Riley, Ben


Batey, Joseph
Harney, E. A.
Ritson, J.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hayes, John Henry
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Bromfield, William
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buchanan, G.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scrymgeour, E.


Charleton, H. C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Scurr, John


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kelly, W. T.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Connolly, M.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lansbury, George
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Snell, Harry


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lee, F.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lowth, T.
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Day, Colonel Harry
March, S.
Stephen, Campbell


Duncan, C.
Montague, Frederick
Sutton, J. E.




Taylor, R. A.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Windsor, Walter


Thurtle, E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Wright, W.


Tinker, John Joseph
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Westwood, J.



Viant, S. P.
Whiteley, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wallhead, Richard C.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Warne.

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper in the name of LORD H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK:

In page 1, line 15, to leave out the word "five" and to insert instead thereof the word "six."

In page 1, line 17, to leave out the word "three" and to insert instead thereof the word "four."

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) desire to move his Amendments?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Yes, Sir.

Mr. SPEAKER: Then we will take the discussion on the two Amendments together on the first Amendment.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, to leave out the word "five", and to insert instead thereof the word "six."
I hope that the Minister will be able to accept my modest little Amendment. I have not asked for what I think the children ought to have, but have confined myself to what I think there is a possibility of extracting from my right hon. Friend. This Bill will undoubtedly be the target of many criticisms when it becomes an Act of Parliament. Some of those criticisms will be legitimate, but the majority of thorn will be illegitimate. There will be many Members going round the country trying to prove that if they and their party had been in office the Act would have been a much better one. But there is a point on which. I think, criticism may legitimately be centred, and that is on the allowances to the children. We are by way of giving pensions to widows and their children which are sufficient to enable the widow to stay at home, and to relieve her of the obligation of going to the Guardians and from the obligation of going out to work. As a matter of fact, I am afraid that the Bill, as it stands, will do none of these things. We are told that these pensions are only an incentive to thrift, but I am afraid that those who represent industrial
constituencies cannot be very much impressed by that argument. I myself, as representing an industrial constituency, will have great difficulty in persuading the young working man with a wife and a small family that in these hard times when wages are cut down there will be any possibility for him to put by for a, rainy day. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able somehow to produce some money from out of his sleeve or else go to the Exchequer and ask for the money for the concession for which I humbly ask.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am very glad to associate myself with the Noble Lord in this matter. He has made a modest proposal, and I think we should look for some substantial reasons from the right hon. Gentleman why it should not be accepted. It has been moved by one of his own followers, whom I have no fear will give way, and it is one which is not going to upset the whole finance of the Bill. It is difficult to know how the scheme is going to work out. The calculations, of course, are based on most reliable data, but nevertheless there is a wide margin for difference when the figures come into operation. It is perfectly true that 5s. is not sufficient to maintain a growing-child—that will be admitted on all hands—neither for that matter is 6s., but it would be a very graceful concession on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to give this extra 1s. I take it that the two Amendments hang together, and, where there are a number of children, of course it will mean a substantial increase to the family budget.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My Noble Friend asked for this concession with so much modesty and grace that it really pains me not to be able to comply with his request. I am all the more distressed, because I understand that if I had been able to make this concession I should have entered the good graces of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Com-
mander Kenworthy). I am afraid that the answer must be purely financial. There is no question as to what we would like to do. It is a question what we can afford to do, and I am advised that to give this concession, modest as it may seem, would for a good many years cost another £1,000,000 a year, and would rise in time to something more. I am afraid that I have not another £1,000,000 either up my sleeve or anywhere about my person, nor have I any hope of being able to extract it from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I think my noble Friend was a little pessimistic about the ability or desire of working people to put money by even in these hard times. I do not anticipate or consider that these times are normal. We all hope that this period of depression will pass away and that there will be greater opportunities for saving. I have myself been very much impressed by the extraordinary efforts made by working people, even when they are earning much below what they have been in the habit of receiving, to put something by, and I have hopes, although these sort of conditions may be very hard for the majority of them, that there may still be a large number who will be able to have savings of their own so as to supplement the benefits under this Bill.

Miss WILKINSON: There are a good many of us who feel that this question of the children is most important. We also feel that the scheme is being over financed. We may be wrong, or we may be right; but, after, say a year or two, when he has some idea how the scheme is going to work out, will the right hon. Gentleman make this his first concession when he comes to consider any improvements in the Bill. It is the most important thing that any of us have to consider—the bringing up of a child on such a wholly inadequate sum.

Mr. BARR: I want to make a short comparison between the sums paid under this scheme and those paid by the parish council in my constituency. The clerk of that council has prepared a table which shows the sums paid by them to those who are in receipt of aid, and those allowances compare very favourably with those under this Bill. Under the parish council scheme, the allowance given to a widow ranges from 10s. to 14s., and the allowance for the first child brings1 it up to 19s., whereas the grant under this scheme is 15s., an advantage of 4s. in favour of the parish council. As the number of children increases, so we find the discrepancy between the two schemes widens. Under this scheme a widow with two children gets 18s., and under the parish council scheme 23s. For a widow with three children the allowance is 21s. under this Bill, and the parish council give 27s. And a similar disparity goes on right up to the case where seven is taken as the number of the family. The widow with one or more children will have to seek Poor Law relief, and the hopes held out that these people would be taken out of the realm of Poor Law relief are dashed to the ground. The mothers will have either to get work or to seek relief from the parish councils. I think this contrast, which I have put at the request of the parish council, is a very strong argument for the grant of more liberal allowances. For that reason, and in spite of what the Minister has said, I wish to give my support to this Amendment.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Question put, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 98.

Division No. 304.]
AYES.
[4.20 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Brass, Captain W.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Briggs, J. Harold
Christie, J. A.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Briscoe, Richard George
Clarry, Reginald George


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Brocklebank, C. E. H.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Balniel, Lord
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Cooper, A. Duff


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Cope, Major William


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Crook, C. W.


Bethell, A.
Campbell, E. T.
Crookshank, Col. C. de w. (Berwick)


Betterton, Henry B.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)


Blundell, F. N.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)


Davies Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ-, Belfast)


Davies Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Doyle Sir N. Grattan
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Smithers, Waldron


Elveden Viscount
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Erskine Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Loder, J. de V.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Erskine James Malcolm Monteith
Looker, Herbert William
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Falls Sir Bertram G
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Fermoy, Lord
Macintyre, Ian
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Foxcroft Captain C. T.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Gilmour, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Meller, R. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Goff, Sir Park
Milne, J.S. Wardlaw-
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Gretton, Colonel John
Monsell, Eyres Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hanbury, C.
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Harland, A.
Murchison, C. K.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Haslam, Henry C.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hawke, John Anthony
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Pennefather, Sir John
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hilton, Cecil
Pleiou, D. P.
Wilson, Sir C.H. (Leeds, Central)


Hoare Lt-Col Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Raine, W.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Holbrook Sir Arthur Richard
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Holt, Captain H. P.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Wolmer, Viscount


Horne Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)


Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Hume Sir G. H.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Huntingfield, Lord
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.



Hurst, Gerald B.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jackson Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Captain Margesson and Captain


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sandon, Lord
Viscount Curzon.


NOES.


Adamson W M. (Staff. Cannock)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Baker, Walter
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snell, Harry


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Barnes, A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Barr, J.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Batey, Joseph
Kelly. W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Kennedy, T.
Taylor, R. A.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Kenyon, Barnet
Thurtle, E.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Lansbury, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lawson, John James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Buchanan, G.
Lee, F.
Varley, Frank B.


Charleton, H. C.
Lowth, T.
Viant, S. P.


Cluse, W. S.
March, S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Clynes, Right Hon. John R.
Montague, Frederick
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Connolly, M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Warne, G. H.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Murnin, H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dalton Hugh
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Oliver, George Harold
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Paling, W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Day, Colonel Harry
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Westwood, J.


Duncan, C.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Whiteley, W.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gillett, George M.
Potts, John S.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Riley, Ben
Windsor, Walter


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ritson, J.
Wright, W.


Groves, T.
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Southwark, N.)
Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W. R., Elland)



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardle, George D.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Sir Godfrey Collins and Lieut.-


Harney, E. A.
Scrymgeour, E.
Commander Kenworthy.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 1, line 22, to leave out the word "widow," and to insert instead thereof the word" woman."
The object of this Amendment is to give an orphan's allowance in all cases to the orphan children of an insured woman.
In this Bill an "orphan" is denned as a child both of whose parents are dead. Where a woman who is insured is married to an uninsured man, it is provided in the Bill, if the man dies first, and his widow survives him and continues in insurance, that when she dies her orphan
children will get an orphan's allowance, but if the woman dies first and the husband afterwards, then the orphan children will not get any allowance at all. I hope very much that this very small Amendment will be accepted by the Minister. We have tried on other occasions to get something for these insured women. The Minister has not seen his way to give her a widow's pension when her husband dies, and he has not seen his way to meet other claims made on her behalf. This particular Amendment is an exceedingly small one, which will cost very little money, and as he has been so good as to meet me, in one way or another on all the other Amendments in my name, I hope he will not now break my run of good fortune, but grant some concession on this very small point.
I tried yesterday to find out what the cost would be, but the answer I received was that data were not available, but I think I am right in putting the cost at a very low figure. The number of cases in which a woman who is insured will continue in insurance after marriage up to the date of her death, and who is married to an uninsured man, will, in any case, be very small. On top of that, the woman, in order to come within this provision, will have to die first and the husband afterwards. Thirdly, there must be children of the marriage who are under 14, or under 16 if they be still at school. Therefore, the number of cases to which this provision will apply will be very few; but, nevertheless, I feel that this is an important point, because we are calling upon a woman to pay her contributions year by year, and if she marries an uninsured man and continues her insurance she will expect to get some recompense. The knowledge that if she dies her orphan children will get an orphan's allowance will be a considerable thing for her, and go a long way to recompense her for all the contributions she has paid. I am not quite sure whether the Minister may not make another answer, and I am not certain how the Bill stands on this point. During the Committee stage we raised the question of the woman who had been insured while single, who married an uninsured man, who thereupon became entitled to become a voluntary contributor. I am not sure whether that applies to a woman who remains in
insurance after marriage, but that is not quite the point at issue here.
We are asking that the woman should get this orphan allowance on the strength of her own contributions, and that is not a very large matter. Even if the man could become a voluntary contributor while the wife remains a contributor there would be a double benefit. I ask the House to remember that these orphan children will have to be provided for, and they cannot be allowed to starve. Either they will be handed over to some working-class relative or they will go on Poor Law relief, which only means paying for their upkeep out of another pocket instead of out of taxation, and that will be a great hardship. Here you have a woman paying contributions all her life, and it does seem hard that after her death her children have no provision made for them under this Bill. For these reasons I hope the Minister of Pensions will be able to make this small concession which would confer a great boon upon a number of working women who are now called upon to contribute all their lives.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to second the Amendment.
The point raised does not affect a great number of women, but it is a case of great hardship. It is quite a simple point. This Bill provides for orphan pensions, but when you come to an insured woman marrying an uninsured man if the father dies first the orphans will receive a pension, but if the mother dies first the orphans will receive no pension, although the mother would have contributed to the fund. That is a point upon which we desire to have an answer.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There are really two classes who would be brought in by this Amendment, although the Mover has only mentioned one. I think it is necessary to call attention to the fact that under the Amendment the orphan children of a single woman would also come into benefit. It would mean a much more considerable addition to the cost than the hon. Member has thought of.

Mr. SPENCER: Is there any objection if the single woman is a contributor?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, there is. I do not want to go into the moral aspect of the question, but in cases of that kind there would be a great practical difficulty in tracing the father and ascertaining
whether he was or was not dead. I do not wish to dwell on that class of case. The hon. Member is thinking of the case of an insured woman and an uninsured man, and he says we have not made any provision in the case of a woman who marries an uninsured man. The hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) has already acknowledged that some of his suggestions have been favourably received, and I remember that one of those concessions we made was to help this particular class of case. It is a fact that we have allowed an uninsured man to become a voluntary contributor by virtue of the contributions made by his wife. In Clause 13 of this Bill Sub-section (4) it is provided that
Where an uninsured man marries an insured woman by or in respect of whom 104 contributions have been paid under this Act. he may if he gives notice within the prescribed time after the marriage and in the prescribed manner become a voluntary contributor under the Insurance Act.
Therefore, this will be done in the case of an uninsured man who marries an insured woman if she has paid 104 contributions, for then he can exercise his option, and if he does that and becomes a voluntary contributor the hon. Member

will see that it is not necessary for the woman to continue her insurance provided that 104 contributions have been paid. In that case the man has it in his own power to provide against the contingency of his own death, and see that his orphan children are entitled to this allowance.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I was thinking of the case of a Lancashire working woman remaining at work after marriage, and she is compulsorily insured even after marriage.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: After all, the great bulk of these cases are women who marry uninsured men, and generally they are men of the class who have got a shop or some business not within the meaning of the Act. The great bulk of these people will be in a better position than the ordinary employed contributor, and will no doubt make some provision for their children. If a man makes such provision as I have referred to, then the concession I have made enables him to become a voluntary contributor and then there is very little hardship or grievance left.

Question put, "That the word 'widow' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 98.

Division No. 305.]
AYES.
[4.40 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Loder, J. de V.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Davison, Sir W. H, (Kensington, S.)
Looker, Herbert William


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Dixey, A. C.
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Balniel, Lord
Elveden, Viscount
Macintyre, Ian


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Macmillan, Captain H.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Margesson, Captain D.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Fermoy, Lord
Meller, R. J.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Bethell, A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Betterton, Henry B.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Brass, Captain W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C, R. (Ary)


Briggs, J. Harold
Gretton, Colonel John
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Briscoe, Richard George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Murchison, C. K.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harland, A.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Haslam, Henry C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hilton, Cecil
Pennefather, Sir John


Campbell, E. T.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Holt, Captain H. P.
Pielou, D. P.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Christie, J. A.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Raine, W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Clarry, Reginald George
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Rentoul, G. S.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Huntingfield, Lord
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hurst, Gerald B.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Cope, Major William
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Ropner, Major L.


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Crook, C. W.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sandon, Lord


Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Wilson, Ft. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Smithers, Waldron
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wolmer, Viscount


Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Wood, Ht. Hon. E.(York, W, R., Ripon)


Sprot, Sir Alexander
Warrender, Sir Victor
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.



Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Major Hennessy and Captain




Viscount Curzon.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff. Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Snell, Harry


Baker, Walter
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Barnes, A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sutton, J. E.


Barr, J.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Taylor, R. A.


Batey, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Kennedy, T.
Thurtle, E.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Tinker, John Joseph


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kenyon, Barnet
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Charleton, H. C.
Lansbury, George
Varley, Frank B.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Viant, S. P.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lee, F.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lowth, T.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Connolly, M.
March, S.
Warne, G. H.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Montague, Frederick
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dalton, Hugh
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Cot. D. (Rhondda)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Murnin, H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Oliver, George Harold
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Day, Colonel Harry
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Westwood, J.


Duncan, C.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Whiteley, W.


Fenby, T. D.
Potts, John S.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gillett, George M.
Ritson, J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Wright, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Salter, Dr. Alfred



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scrymgeour, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardle, George D.
Scurr, John
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Harney, E. A.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Charles Edwards.

Mr. VIANT: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out the words "seven shillings and sixpence," and to insert instead thereof the words "twelve shillings."
To save the time of the House I move this Amendment formally.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to second the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words 'seven shillings and sixpence' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 140; Noes, 94.

Division No. 306.]
AYES.
[4.50 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Brown, Maj. D.C.(N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Campbell, E. T.
Dixey, A. C.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Ht. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M)


Balniel, Lord
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Christie, J. A.
Fermoy, Lord


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Clarry, Reginald George
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Bethell, A.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gretton, Colonel John


Betterton, Henry B.
Cooper, A. Duff
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Brass, Captain W.
Cope, Major William
Hanbury, C.


Briggs, J. Harold
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Briscoe, Richard George
Crook, C. W.
Harland, A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Haslam, Henry C.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Smithers, Waldron


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hilton, Cecil
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Murchison, C. K.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Nelson, Sir Frank
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Pennefather, Sir John
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hume, Sir G. H.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Huntingfield, Lord
Pielou, D. P.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hurst, Gerald B.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Raine, W.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk, Peel
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Rentoul, G. S.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Loder, J. de V.
Ropner, Major L.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Looker, Herbert William
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Wolmer, Viscount


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Macintyre, Ian
Sandon, Lord
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley



McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Margesson, Captain D.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Captain Viscount Curzon and Lord


Meller, R. J.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Stanley.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Snell, Harry


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Baker, Walter
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sutton, J. E.


Barnes, A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Taylor, R. A.


Barr, J.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Batey, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Thurtle, E.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Kennedy, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kenyon, Barnet
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Charieton, H. C.
Lansbury, George
Varley, Frank B.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Viant, S. P.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lee, F.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Livingstone, A. M.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Connolly, M.
Lowth, T.
Warne, G. H.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dalton, Hugh
Montague, Frederick
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Murnin, H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Day, Colonel Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Westwood, J.


Duncan, C.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Whiteley, W.


Fenby, T. D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson. R. J. (Jarrow)


Gillett, George M.
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wright, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ritson, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)



Groves, T.
Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W. R., Elland)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. B.


Hardle, George D.
Scrymgeour, E.
Smith.


Harney, E. A.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, at the end, to insert the words, "in this Act called an orphan's pension."
This is merely a drafting Amendment to restore some words which were in the Bill before it reached the Committee stage, and which were accidentally taken out.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment next following—in page 2, line 7, to leave out the words "sixty-five," and to insert instead thereof the word "sixty"- would involve a charge on the Exchequer, and is out of order.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, to leave out the words "a day school," and to insert instead thereof the words,
any educational establishment recognised by the Board of Education.
When the Bill was in Committee the Minister of Health gave us the words in the Sub-section which I now desire to amend. He inserted the words "under full-time instruction in a day school." The point at issue was a simple one. In the first place, so far as I remember, the Bill meant that the widow's allowance would stop when the child reached the age of 14½ years. Then we received a concession in this Clause to the effect that the child's allowance would be paid as long as the child remained "under full-time instruction in a day school." We are moving our Amendment in the best spirit and in the hope that it will help to make, the provisions of the Bill clearer than they are now. I notice that the Minister of Health smiles but that is our object, on this occasion at any rate. When I consider the meaning of "a day school," I am not sure that some children who might otherwise be included will be included for the children's allowance. There are the elementary schools, and I know of private schools which are not controlled by a local education authority. Some of these schools are supported by grants from the local education authority. There are types of schools, secondary schools, controlled by the municipality, and other schools controlled by Governors, and only a small grant is made by the local authority to such schools. What we seek to provide in the Amendment is that all children shall receive this allowance under this Bill so long as they remain in any educational establishment recognised by the Board of Education. I do not know of any establishment not recognised by the Board of Education where these children would be educated. I would be pleased to learn that the Minister is prepared to accept this Amendment. I do not know whether he will state that there is any flaw in the wording of the Amendment, but the intention of it is that which I have stated.

Mr. BARR: I beg to second the Amendment.
5.0 P.M.
I do so especially from the point of view of the educational conditions that obtain in Scotland. It has long been the tradition in Scotland that boys and girls went to the University, boys in the old days and girls at the present time, at a comparatively early age. Indeed, in bio-
graphies you read that some of the most noted men in our country entered the Universities as early as 12 years of ago. The Universities at that time, and to some extent still, maintain the character of a higher school, and initiate students into various subjects that in some parts of the country are not treated before one enters the University. Intellect matures early in Scotland. I do not say that it is a mere question of precocity, and that it falls away afterwards, but you will find instances even in recent years of lads of 15 years taking the first place in the open competition on entering Glasgow University and other Universities. These will be cut out by the words as it stands at present, which would confine the benefit to the day school and not extend it to those who were in attendance at a University before 16. I can speak from experience, having been for 11 years a. member of what used to be the School Board for Glasgow, and I testify that it is the proud ambition of working widows to give their sons, and, now, their daughters, too, a university education. Some of the brightest ornaments in the professions in Scotland have in this way had a good education and been able to take up high positions. If the Minister can make this concession, it will help to encourage them, and help to give still further uplift and encouragement to those who are doing this heroic thing. We count this one of the proud glories of our country and one of the very brightest pages in the annals of the poor, and the Minister will be contributing to a very heroic purpose if he makes this concession.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In moving in Committee to insert the words "a day school," I explained that they were taken from the Unemployed Workers' Dependants (Temporary Provision) Act, 1921, and that I would undertake) to inquire from the Ministry of Labour what had been their experience and whether the words had been sufficient. I am advised that their experience has been that the words were quite sufficient, and, moreover, that the Amendment would have the effect of restricting instead of enlarging the position. The term "day school" has been interpreted as covering any school where the pupils receive not less than 25 hours a week instruction. In practice the words
have been interpreted to include elementary schools, central and secondary schools, technical institutes and commercial schools and colleges, and even private schools. There may be cases that would not be recognised in that technical sense that would come within the interpretation of the Ministry of Labour. We intend to interpret the words in the same way as the Ministry of Labour, and therefore I think the Amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: In view of the information given by the Minister as to the meaning of the term "day school," I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 3.—(Widows' Pensions.)

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, to leave out the word "The" and to insert instead thereof the word "An."

This is a drafting Amendment.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: May I ask the Minister if this is really a drafting Amendment? I think it would give to the Minister the right to give what he thought fit.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: "The" additional allowance appears to refer to some particular additional allowance, whereas "an" additional allowance does not.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Orphans' Pensions.)

Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, in page 3, line 29, to leave out the words "being a married man or a widower."
This Amendment is for the purpose of taking care of the child of a man who may, possibly, never have got married. According to the Clause, the child of a married man or widower may get the orphan's pension. It may very well be that the child of such persons may be as illegitimate as any ordinary illegitimate child, that is, a woman may have had an illegitimate child and then marry and then the man contributes and dies. These children, I understand, get a pension without any question, according to the words of this Clause. What we want is, if a man is the father of an illegitimate child and never marries, and happens to die before that child reaches the age when
no pension is payable, that that child shall get a pension. I do not think we need argue the question of morals on this matter. This House has over and over again recognised that the child is not responsible for its parents, and that therefore a child in these circumstances ought not to be penalised. I think the number of such cases will probably be very email, but I can say I have known cases where the mother of an illegitimate child has died, and the father brought it up, and it seems to me that if under those circumstances the man has been a contributor the child should have a pension.

Mr. TINKER: I should like to support the Amendment in view of the Workmen's Compensation Act. I think the Minister would be well-advised to accept it in view of that Act.

Mr. SPENCER: May I ask the Minister a question? Suppose a man is contributing weekly to an illegitimate child, and benefit has been imposed by the Court, and the man dies and he is an insured contributor, I understand that as the law stands now, there will be no pension.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not concerned to argue this particular Amendment on the question of morals. Clause 45, the Interpretation Clause, already makes provision for certain illegitimate children, and we have laid it-down there that a child includes
in relation to a man, an illegitimate child, whether his or his wife's., who was living with him at the time of his death and. in relation to a woman, includes her illegitimate child who was living with her at the time of her death.
Therefore, in the case of married men who may have illegitimate children living with them they are treated as their own children. The further question of the illegitimate child of a bachelor is one of administration. If these children are to be considered, we must have proof of the death of both parents. If the man is a bachelor with an illegitimate child of his own living with him, it may be impossible to trace the mother, whether dead or alive. There is also the point that there could be—I was going to say it would be opening the door to further inroads on the finances of the Bill. I do not know how many cases there would be of this kind, but I do know that there are 40,000 illegitimate births every year,
but how many would be brought under this particular Amendment it would be difficult to say. The real difficulty, however, is the practical difficulty of administration.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Minister whether it would not be possible to insert words to make provision that the death of the mother and the birth of the child being registered, should be supplied as evidence that the child was indeed born? Would it not be possible, under the Regulations, to make a regulation to that effect? I did not elaborate the case because I hoped the Minister might have been able to accept the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot answer that question without further consideration. I do not see at the moment how it could be done. Perhaps it could be done on the definition Clause. I will look into that to-morrow.

Mr. SPENCER: Is there not a possibility of grave injustice being inflicted on someone here? I take it there is no provision for a child in whose case at the time preceding the father's death there was imposed on the father by the Courts an obligation of paying to the child. Now, if the father dies, and this Amendment is not accepted, as far as I can see there is not going to be anything done for that child. I think the Minister should give us some assurance that that child will be protected.

Mr. TINKER: May I take it that the Minister will go into this matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I said I would.

Mr. LANSBURY: On the word of the Minister to consider this Amendment, I propose, with your permission to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Miss WILKINSON:

In page 3, line 34, to leave out the word "widow" and to insert instead thereof the word "woman."

Miss WILKINSON: On the Amendment that has been passed over, which incorporates the same sort of principle as the previous Amendment, can I ask whether the same thing applies?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Hope): If the hon. Member refers to the Amendment just passed, no more questions can be asked on that.

Miss WILKINSON: The point I am making is that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) is followed by an Amendment which is in my name, which you have passed over for the obvious reason that it incorporates precisely the same principle, except that it affects the. woman in the same way as the previous one affects the man. Before we go on to the other Clause, may I ask whether the Minister will consider this Amendment in the same manner as the other?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has brought her point to the notice of the Minister, but it was not in order.

CLAUSE 6.—(Special provisions as to additional allowances and widows' and orphans' pensions.)

Miss WILKINSON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 34, after the word "payable," to insert the words
or where such person is incapacitated and resident in any institution for the purpose of obtaining medical or surgical treatment for a period exceeding three months.
I raised this point on the Schedule during the Debate on the Second Reading, and the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to point out that, if we wanted to get this point in, it would have to come at a later stage of the Bill. After going through the Bill very carefully, it seems to me that, if we could insert these words in Clause 6, it would meet the point that I raised on the Schedule in the previous Debate. May I very briefly remind the Minister of what the position is? If we accept the position as laid down in the Schedule to the Bill, it means that, where a widow is taken into a Poor Law infirmary if she is an inmate there for more than three months, her pension ceases to be payable to her. There are a good many places in this country where the Poor Law infirmary is the place to which women of the working class naturally go. It does not imply to them any stigma of pauperism, but they cannot afford to pay nursing home fees, and the voluntary Hospitals are overcrowded or not available. The number of these cases would probably not be very large, but we are dealing
here with women whose lives have been very hard. A woman might go into such an institution for a very serious surgical operation or complicated medical treatment and it might be quite impossible for her to be discharged within three months. The operation of treatment may involve her remaining there for four or five, or even six months. Those of us who are dealing with working women know that one of the great terrors of a woman who is taken away from Her home, whether for confinement or for treatment, is what is happening to the children who are left behind. That applies even When the husband is there, and it certainly applies still more in the case of a widow, who is already receiving so very little to keep her home together; and we know it is so often the case that this worry as to what is going on at home is one of the most potent factors in preventing her from getting well.
Everyone dealing with working women knows that the elimination of worry is one of the main factors in getting them back to health and strength. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the state of mind of such a woman when the three months are drawing to an end, and she knows that the pension which has been paid to her, and which she is probably paying to someone else for looking after her children, will no longer be paid. She will begin immediately to wonder what is happening to her children. I know it is very difficult to get concessions at this stage of a Bill, but I do not think this will involve very much financially, and I have tried to be extremely moderate, and, therefore, am not asking that the whole 10s. shall be paid to the woman after she has been three months in hospital, but that after the three months, if the Minister cannot go on paying the full 10s.—and I realise that there are certain drawbacks—those children should be put on the same footing as orphans. We all recognise the reason why the extra money is given to the orphan, so that someone may be paid to do the work which the mother naturally does from love of her children. If the right hon. Gentleman could give this small concession, while it might not affect a very large number of people, it would mean a very great deal to women in these unfortunate circumstances. They would
feel that someone was being paid to look after the children, and, if the Minister could see his way to grant that, I am sure the whole House would be extremely grateful to him.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to second the Amendment.
The point is a very simple one, and is, in fact, so obvious that I wish to ask the Minister whether it is not in fact already covered by the Bill. A woman goes into the infirmary, and, according to the Bill, after three months she loses her pension, but, as the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) has pointed out, her children still have to live, and those who look after the children still have to be paid. The Amendment, therefore, proposes that the allowance should still be paid on behalf of the children. That seems to me to be so obvious that I am not really quite sure whether it is not covered by the Bill. There are some words in Sub-section (2) of Clause 21 which seem to me to refer to this point, but I should like to be assured on the subject. If it is not covered by the Bill, I hope the Minister will not make the defence that is included in the Memorandum that he sent round explaining the Bill. That Memorandum states that this provision is in line with that contained in the Old Age Pensions Act, but this Bill has no analogy with the Old Age Pensions Act. It is an Insurance Bill, and the analogy of this Bill is with the National Health Insurance Act, with which, indeed, the Minister says it is interlocked. He will, of course, know that under the National Health Insurance Act, if a man goes into a hospital or a Poor Law institution, his benefits are paid to his wife or children or any dependant relatives he may have. That is the principle that ought to be followed here, and, modified and very much moderated, it is the principle which the Mover of this Amendment suggests should be adopted.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) in discussing the general principles which govern the provisions in the Schedule. I think my task is rather to confine myself to the Amendment which has been moved. May I say that, without having myself searched through the Bill to see what would be the proper place at which to insert this Amendment, I think I can confidently
say that it ought not to be in the place where it is. In Sub-section (1) of Clause 6 we are dealing with cases where by order of any Court a child has been removed from the custody of the person to whom the allowance is or will be payable, and the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) will, no doubt, remember that, when we were discussing this matter in Committee, I made a concession on this particular Sub-section. I thought, however, that I saw a distinction between cases where separation occurred by order of the Court and cases where the mother herself had abandoned or ceased to support the child, and I said to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment on that occasion that I would accept it on condition that he did not move his later Amendment dealing with voluntary abandonment. The case dealt with in this present Amendment is not one where there is any separation by order of the Court; it is the case where the mother has entered an institution for the purpose of receiving medical or surgical attendance. I also want to point out that, although the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough has only talked about Poor Law infirmaries, that is not what the Amendment says. It says "any institution," and you might very well, therefore, have the case of a woman going into a voluntary hospital and receiving her pension, not merely for three months, but for the whole time she is in the hospital, although she would no longer have to support herself, but would be supported at the expense of the hospital. She would be receiving her pension, and there could not be any possible justification in that case for giving an increased allowance in respect of the children.
Then comes the small number of cases that are left over, which would be confined to cases of women who have entered Poor Law infirmaries, and the hon. Member says that we ought to try to remove worry from the minds of these mothers by providing that when the pension ceases, that is to say when the woman has been in the institution for more than three months, the children's allowances should be paid on the larger scale given to orphans. I might, perhaps, remind the hon. Member, first of all, that these women are in a much better position than would have been the case before this Bill. After all, they are receiving their pen-
sions themselves for three months while they are in the infirmary, and their children's allowances in any case. Has the hon. Member considered that during the first three months such a woman has not had to support herself, but has been supported in the infirmary? The pension of 10s. which is still being paid might, therefore, I think, very well be considered as some contribution towards the cost of maintaining the children after the period of three months, should she be so unfortunate as to have to remain in the infirmary for more than that time. Finally, I would also remark that it would make matters very difficult administratively to have this dodging in and out of different scales of benefit for the children. First of all, there would be the children's allowances of 5s. for the first and 3s. each for the others. Then, after a period of three months, that is to be changed to 7s. 6d. for each child, and, when the woman comes out of the institution, it has got to be changed back again. It seems to me that the administration difficulty of ascertaining exactly when these changes are due, and making the necessary alterations in the scale of allowances, even apart from the question of equity, would make the Amendment an exceedingly difficult one to accept. While I put that forward, however, I rely rather upon what I call the equity of the case, and it does not seem to me that a sufficient case has been made out for an alteration in the amount granted in the exceptional circumstances referred to.

Miss WILKINSON: May I just ask a question?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not want to prevent the hon. Member from asking a question, but I would point out that we are on the Report stage now, and only one speech is allowed.

Mr. HARNEY: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman really directed the attention of the House to the real point that is involved here. This is an additional payment to the child who is deprived of the benefit of a parent. The position is that, if an order of the Court separates the mother from the child, then the child, to all intents and purposes, is in the position of an orphan, and so receives an orphan's allowance. For my part, I do not see any difference in principle between a parent being withdrawn from a child,
and thereby leaving it a virtual orphan, by an order of the Court, and a parent being withdrawn from a child by an order of God through sickness. Therefore, I cannot see any reason why such a provision should not be made as this: "We, by this Bill, give an orphan something more than we give a child that is living with its parents. Show me the case of a child that answers to all the attributes of an orphan, whether its parents be dead or alive, and I will give the increased allowance." I think that that ought to be the principle. Whether it can be embodied in this form or not I am rather doubtful, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will think whether it might not be possible to deal with it at a later stage.

Mr. LANSBURY: I should like to join in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give this more consideration. I think he has forgotten that when the mother of children is in an institution, whether the institution takes part of the 10s. a week or whether it still remains in her hands as it were, there is still the rent to pay, and there is still someone to take care of the children. I speak about this not theoretically, but practically. It is a real difficulty when the mother, especially a widow, is taken away from her children into an infirmary or institution. The fact that she has had 10s. for three months is no argument at all for saying that at the end of the three months the orphan's pension should not be increased to 7s. 6d. when the 10s. is going to stop. There is all the more reason for doing it. As to the difficulty, that all arises because this is a contributory insurance Measure. But even so, I think the Ministry of Pensions has no end of this sort of cases to deal with, and really more difficult cases, and is able to deal with them quite efficiently and well. The hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last agrees with the Minister that this is not the right place. Perhaps the Minister will consult with the people concerned and, when we reach the right place, see whether he can do it in the right manner. I hope he will not dismiss it, especially on the ground that the woman has had 10s. for three months. I want to stress the point that she probably needs that 10s. more when she is
in an institution than when she is outside.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I quite appreciate the point that the woman going into an institution has one change, on the three months expiry she has another change, and coming out of the institution has a third change, but that would be so in any case, because when she goes into the institution the child allowance will be paid to someone else. At the end of the three months the Minister proposes to stop the widow's allowance, and on her coming out of the institution he restarts it and again begins to pay the children's allowance to her. Therefore, this proposal does not make a fresh set of changes. It only alters the nature of the changes which are already being made, so that the administrative difficulty is less than the Minister suggests.

Captain BENN: I do not see that there is any essential illogicality in putting the Amendment in here. It is true that the provision of the orphan's allowance in place of the smaller sum is originally only intended to happen when an order of the Court is being made. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) proposes that it should be given when another circumstance arises, namely, when the woman is in hospital for more than three months, and therefore, although there may be a better place to put it, I do not think essentially it throws Clause 6 out of gear. Of course we are working under great difficulties, because we have no further opportunity on this side, once the Clause is passed, to do any more. The most we can hope for is that the Minister will do it in another place. I hope he will consider the Amendment. Many people who go into a hospital are asked to contribute to it, and it is likely, knowing that she is in receipt of a pension, that the authorities of the hospital may ask her for something, and she may feel bound to give something, and with the additional expense at home and the standing charges of rent, plus perhaps a charge for some woman to look after her children, it is an occasion when a. little latitude should be granted. I should like the. Minister to say what this would cost. If it is a costly Amendment, that may be a sufficient answer to many Members, but is it a matter of a few thousands, or a few tens
of thousands, or is it one of those Amendments which would shatter the finance of the Bill?

Amendment negatived.

Captain BENN: I beg to move, in page 4, line 39, after the word "Where," to insert the words
after giving to the widow or other person to whom the additional allowance is payable, an opportunity of being heard.
We are dealing now with Sub-section (2), which causes the mother to be deprived of the allowance for her child in cases where representations are made to the Minister that she is not a fit person to discharge the obligation. These Amendments are intended to improve the position of the woman, and give her a better opportunity of stating her case. As the Clause stands, the position is as follows: First of all, the representation has to be made to the Minister by the local authority or otherwise. I do not quite understand what is meant by "or otherwise." This was very fully discussed in the Committee, and some difficulty was found by some Members in understanding what was meant by "representation may be made by a local authority," and how it was to be done. But we will pass that by as having some meaning, and come to the words "or otherwise." They mean, I presume, any sort of communication to the Minister. It is obvious that they might mean an anonymous letter or" any sort of possibly malicious information laid against the woman. The proposal of the Minister is that such a representation shall come to his Department, and he shall give her an opportunity of being heard, if the local authority or otherwise is to be given an opportunity of making a representation. The purpose of my two Amendments is, first of all, to see that the moment these charges are laid against her she has an opportunity of answering them. For that purpose, we put in words to say that before the representation is made, the local authority must give the woman whose character is being attacked an opportunity of stating her ease to them. Then the consequential Amendment leaves out the words which were intended to cover the case where the local authority had not heard the woman, because under the first Amendment they will be compelled to hear her, and it provides that in every case she shall have an appeal to the Minister if she is being
deprived of the allowance. There is no money involved in it at all, and I think it is an Amendment which will commend itself to Members in all parts of the House. It merely seeks to secure to the woman who is about to lose her rights under the Bill, to which she has contributed, a hearing before, on some evidence, she is deprived of those rights. I think that is a fair statement of the case. The Minister has gone a certain distance to meet the difficulty, but I think these Amendments make the scheme a little more strict and would assist the woman, or, at any rate, provide that no serious injustice was done.

Mr. FENBY: I beg to second the Amendment in order to clear up the way in which these representations ought to be made to the Minister. There is nothing more easy in administration than for someone to lay a complaint against a particular person, which complaint may deprive him of some benefit, but there is every difficulty sometimes in getting that person to substantiate the complaint, and if the local authority, or any other person, was obliged to give a person against whom he lays an information an opportunity of being heard, I think we should do away with a good many complaints, and at any rate, the complaints that were made would be based on solid facts, an opportunity being given for the facts to be examined and proved.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The two Amendments the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to do not seem to me to read at all. The first does not read and the second is wrongly drafted, and should refer to other words, not from "where" but from "that," I think I understand what ho intended, and I have tried to understand what it is that he is afraid of, and what he thinks he is prevented by the Amendment. Assuming that any imperfections in drafting were put right, it appears to me the result would be that you would have a double hearing.

Captain BENN: The intention is that this information should not be sent up to the right hon. Gentleman's Department until the woman has had an opportunity there of facing those who are accusing her.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not exactly what I am dealing with. If the intention of the Amendments were carried out, the effect would be that there
would have to be in every case, first a hearing of the woman locally, and second a hearing by the Minister or some person appointed by him. Is that what the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants?

Captain BENN: The first intention is that, before anyone can lay an information to deprive the woman of her right, she shall be heard. The second is that, before the Minister can decide to take away her rights, he should give her a hearing.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Let us see what this really means. We are dealing with a case where the widow has deserted, or abandoned, or ceased to support her child, or become disqualified for the time being for receiving her widow's pension, and a representation has been made to the Minister in order that the pension should be taken away, but that the additional allowance payable in respect of the child should, in the interest of the child, be payable to some other person than the mother.

Captain BENN: Those are allegations.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is the representation that is being made to the Minister. The hon. and gallant Gentleman desires to prevent any such information or representation being made to the Minister until the woman has had an opportunity of being heard and stating her side of the case. I think that is going a great deal too far. Action does not follow immediately upon the laying of the representation, and I think it would be altogether wrong to say the Minister must not receive any information until the woman has had an opportunity of being heard. The information may come from a local authority, or from some other person. It may be from some irresponsible person, but it may not, I do not think you should try to debar that person from giving this information, which, after all, is only being given in the interest, not of the individual who is making the representation, but of the child. We provide that when that happens, the woman must be given an opportunity, before any action is taken by the Minister, of personally putting her side of the case after hearing what the charge is. We have given that already. We have said, first of all, that it should be given by the local
authority. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman says the information may not be given by the local authority. It may be given by someone else. But that does not prevent the local authority from taking the case up. The Minister has power under the Bill, when he gets information of this sort, to refer it to the local authority and ask them to investigate and report, and that is the course he naturally would take. If he does that. the local authority would, no doubt, give the woman a chance of being personally heard. In order that there may be no possible mistake about the woman having every chance, we have provided that if she has not had such opportunity before an information is sent to the Minister, and before he decides on his action, he shall give her such an opportunity. Seeing the nature of the allegations with which we are dealing, and the purpose for which representations are to be made, namely, in the interests of the child, we have provided ample safeguards in this Clause to see that the woman is not unfairly or unjustly treated. I cannot see any object in duplicating the hearing and in insisting that not only is she to be heard by the local authority but by the person appointed by the Minister. I hope that after that explanation the hon. and gallant Member will not press his Amendment.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: I think there is more in this Amendment than appears on the surface. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the proviso, he will see that in giving the right to the woman to be heard before the Minister, the proviso already contemplates the possibility of the woman being heard by the local authority. The governing words are
Provided that where the widow or other person to whom the additional allowance or orphan's pension is payable has not had an opportunity of presenting her case personally, or through some person appointed by her, to the local authority.
Therefore, it is assumed that she will have had an opportunity of presenting her case to the local authority or some person appointed by the local authority. It is only in a case where, through some defect, that has not happened that it is provided that the Minister shall, before giving directions, give her an opportunity of being heard. As I understand it, what the Clause says is this: normally, the
woman will have had an opportunity of presenting her case personally to the local authority or some person appointed by the local authority. If by some mischance that right is not given to her, then she shall have the right of Appeal to the Minister. As I understand the Amendment, it amounts to this, that in any event, whether she has a right to appeal to the Minister or not, she shall be heard before the local authority in the first instance. That does not seem to me an unreasonable provision.
This whole Clause may be necessary, but it is highly undesirable, in the sense that it is providing an opportunity for local authorities and other persons— reputable and important persons they may be, referred to as "otherwise" in the Clause—to make representations about the character of individuals. It is only fair that before a person who is alleged to have abandoned her child or ceased to support it is put to the trouble of appearing before the Minister because of a report presented by the local authority or by some person described as "otherwise," the whole case shall have been thrashed out by the local authority. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman docs not welcome a provision which would deprive him of the invidious task of going through all these cases. As the proviso stands, it is only the cases where the local authority have not gone into them that are affected. If the local authority have always to hear the case, the central authority, the Minister, will be relieved of an invidious task as it is an undesirable thing that people should be encouraged to make evil reports about their neighbours, you cannot have this thing done too openly. One hon. Member pointed out that we have succeeded in getting removed from the Bill one Clause of a very similar nature, and he said that we have to realise that, human nature being what it is, people will begin to gossip about one another, and someone will run, along and say "Mrs. So-and-So has deserted her child." Someone else will say, "Mrs. So-and-So has not been treating her child properly, because it has not had a pair of clean socks for a week." You will have that sort of gossip, which you do not want to encourage. If these people know that they have to give the woman a chance of facing them before the local authority, the trouble would be obviated.
We appreciate what the Government have done. I agree that the Bill is better now than it was originally, and certainly very much better because of the disappearance of the other objectionable feature to which I have referred. It is only a further precaution to ask that the woman shall have an opportunity of exercising her statutory right to be heard by the local authority. What is the meaning of the word "otherwise" in Subsection (2):
Where a representation is made to the Minister by the local authority or otherwise.
Does the word "otherwise" mean representation by some other local authority? It may mean representation by something which is not quite a local authority and not quite a person. Does it mean a charity organisation society? Does it mean a member of the Independent Labour party? I am struggling against the impression that it can mean that any person, however irresponsible, can come in and report a piece of gossip. I like to think well of the Government, and I cannot believe that any Government could really mean that any tittle-tattler, any ill-informed person, any malicious person, could come forward and say that "Mrs. So-and-so has neglected her child." It must mean something. What does it mean? What is that which is otherwise than a local authority and yet sufficiently like a local authority to be given the same power? I cannot think that it means a person.

Mr. SPENCER: I would rather the proviso remained as it is than that the Amendment should be put in. The proviso stipulates that a local authority may make representations to the Minister with a view to getting a woman's pension stopped, or the pension in respect of the child stopped because she is not looking after the child. The local authority may, if they like, give the woman an opportunity of appearing before them. If they fail to do so she has the right to appeal to the Minister to be heard before anything further can be done. Let us assume that the local authority make representations to the Minister, and we insert this Amendment. It would mean that that same local authority will have to hear the woman; that those who are making the representations will also be the judges. It is contrary to every canon of English law that those who are the
accusers shall be the judges at the same time. If the local authority make any representation to the Minister, the woman would have a very poor chance of passing their judgment if she appeared before them. For that reason, if a representation is made by a local authority the further proceedings should be removed from all local prejudice and possible misrepresentations, and should take place before some person who has a clear and fresh mind, free from the tittle-tattle of the district. In the interests of the insured person, I should prefer that the proviso remain as it is than to insert the Amendment.

Captain T. J. O'CONNOR: Whatever we are discussing we are not discussing what the late Solicitor-General said we are discussing. The Amendment as it stands provides two things: that where a representation is made to the Minister that representation may only he made when the widow or other person to whom the additional amount is payable has had an opportunity of being heard; and that the Minister is not to allow any representation to be made to him until after he has heard the person concerning whom he previously has had no representation at all. Therefore, the Amendment would make nonsense of the proviso. Apart from that, I should support the view put forward by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Spencer). This Amendment would afford another type of inquisition besides the type of inquisition provided in the later part of the Clause. In so far as inquisition is necessary in matters of this kind, it must be obvious that such inquisition ought to be by a person as far as possible removed from immediate contact with the person in regard to whom the inquiry is being made.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The last two speeches have assisted me. I can assure the Committee that the person accused is adequately safeguarded. No step can be taken against her unless she does have an opportunity of a hearing of her case. I recognise the anxiety of the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment that no undue hardship should be imposed. By his Amendment he is imposing two hearings, and I do not
think that is necessary. According to his Amendment, the hearing in one case is to take place by the people who are making the representation. That is an objectionable feature in his proposal. It is far better in the interests of the widow that the ordinary method of appeal which is provided for should be given. According to the proviso in the event outlined the Minister is to give the widow or such other person appointed by her an opportunity of so presenting her case to a person appointed by him.

Captain BENN: Will the hon. Member say what is the meaning of the words in the proviso
except in such cases as may be prescribed?

6.0 P.M.

Sir K. WOOD: I think the Minister of Health gave an explanation of those words on the last occasion. As far as I recollect, they are meant to deal with cases where a conviction has been recorded, or matters of that kind. I would much sooner go myself before independent referees than have my case tried in the manner suggested. I agree with the hon. Gentleman who spoke lust. Therefore, on that ground I suggest to the Committee that the widow is amply protected here. With reference to the remarks of the late Solicitor-General as to the words "or otherwise." That is a very wide term. It means that anyone who desires may come forward and make a statement, and I think that that is quite proper. Say, for instance, that one of the inspectors under this Act knew that a woman had deserted or abandoned or failed to support the child, surely it is quite proper that representations should be made to that effect by anybody. I do not see that there is any hardship involved. If the hon. Gentleman, for instance, knew of a case, which he had verified, in which a woman had deserted the child, I do not see why he should not be at liberty to make representations to the Minister. There cannot be any possible hardship, because whatever statement is made has to be subject to investigation, and if the widow herself desires it has to be the subject of an appeal before an independent tribunal. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will see his way not to press the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 5, line 3, leave out from the word "pension" to the word "and," in line 5.—[Sir K. Wood.]

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 5, line 28, to leave out the words, "in such cases as may be prescribed," and to insert instead thereof the words
where the widow or other person cannot be found, or is in prison, or in an asylum or similar institution.
The Committee may remember that objection was taken to the words "in such cases as may be prescribed" and it was suggested that a proper description should be inserted stating exactly what was intended to be done, and I am moving this Amendment to give effect to that suggestion.

Captain BENN: I overlooked this Amendment when I criticised those other words. I think that this is very desirable.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 38. leave out the word "should", and insert instead thereof the words "is or is about to."—[Sir K. Wood.]

CLAUSE 9.—(Rates of contributions.)

Amendment made: In page 8, line 35, leave out the words "if also."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move, in page 8, line 41, after the word "where," to insert the words "on the application of the employer."
There is a fear felt in certain quarters that the employés of local authorities, who have superannuation schemes, may be automatically excluded, whether they desire it or not. The insertion of the words now proposed would guard them against automatic exclusion, so that it would require an application on behalf of the local authority to the Minister before they were excluded. If their fear is not already covered by the Bill, I hope that the Minister will see his way to accept these words.

Mr. SPENCER: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD: The Committee will observe that the Amendment affects paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of Clause 8, which provides
Where the Minister is satisfied as respects any such excepted employment as is mentioned in paragraph (iv) of this Subsection that provision is made as aforesaid for securing benefits in respect of men employed therein on the whole not lees favourable than the benefits by way of old age pensions conferred by this Act on men and their wives, or benefits in respect of women employed therein on the whole not less favourable than the benefits by way of old age pensions conferred by this Act on women, the contributions payable in respect of such men or such women as the case may be, shall be at the rates specified in Part IV of the First Schedule to this Act.
That, as the Committee will remember, goes to reduce the contributions. Now my hon. Friend wants to suggest that this should be done on the application of the employer, and that it should be at his instance and at his instance alone. I must point out that if, in fact, these schemes are in operation which are not less favourable they cannot be limited merely to the application of the employer. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press me in this connection. The Clause is perfectly fair as it is at present, and I do not think that the Amendment would be helpful.

Mr. THOMSON: I see the point raised by the hon. Member, and I would ask him whether these employés can be excluded except at their own request. Are they protected so that the Minister himself cannot exclude them whether they desire to be excluded or not?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I understand the question of the hon. Member, it relates to employés, but the Amendment, if I understand it aright, relates to employers.

Amendment negatived.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move in page 9, line 16, after the word "any" to insert the word "railway."
This is a purely drafting Amendment. It is suggested that if the word were not included it might raise some difficulties, and it is now inserted with the object of bringing railways into this class of employés.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 31, leave out the words "within the meaning of" and insert instead thereof the words "mentioned in."—[Sir K. Wood.]

CLAUSE 13.—(Voluntary Contributors.)

Mr. SPEAKER: The first two Amendments on Clause 13—in page 11, line 40, to leave out the words "other than a married woman," and in line 41, to leave out from the word "who" to the word "Act" in page 12, line 5, involve a charge on the Exchequer, and are out of Order.

Amendment made: In page 12, line 28, leave out the word "a," and insert instead thereof the words "an insured." —[Sir K. Wood.]

CLAUSE 15.—(Persons employed in excepted employment.)

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney)—to insert a new Sub-section at the end of Sub-section (5) —there is some question as to whether it is already covered, and I understand that the hon. Member desires to ask a question about it.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to move, in page 15, line 36, at the end, to insert the words:
(6) Where an uninsured man marries n woman by or in respect of whom one hundred and four contributions have been paid under this Act he may, if he gives notice within the prescribed time after the marriage and in the prescribed manner, become a voluntary contributor under the Insurance Act.
I move this Amendment formally, as the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) is not in his place, in order to ask a question on a point as to which we are not clear. At the present moment, if a woman is insured, and marries, her husband may become a voluntary contributor in virtue of her insurance. That applies to the normal case of the insured woman. The point on which we are in doubt is as to the position of women in excepted employment. The question is whether if they marry uninsured men the husbands can become voluntary contributors on account of the occupation of the women. The point is that although these women are not insured in the ordinary sense, we are not clear as to whether they are technically insured for the purpose of bringing the husbands within the provision of the Bill. The second point is as to the position with regard
to those special employers, the 350 special firms who have schemes of their own with benefits equivalent to those provided under the Bill. That is the case of excepted employment of a rather peculiar character. If a woman is in a firm which has adopted one of these special schemes, and if she marries, can her husband become a voluntary contributor on account of her position within that scheme? If that is not the case our argument is that provision ought to be made. The woman ought to forfeit nothing, because she happens to be, without her own consent, in a special scheme which the Government have permitted. It is in order to secure the position of women in these schemes, of exempted women and of women in excepted employments, that the Amendment has been put down.

Mr. SPENCER: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD: We have given consideration to this Amendment in the light of the cases which the hon. Gentleman has just put, and which we anticipated might be raised. We are advised that Clause 13, Sub-section (4), covers all these cases, and that its language is wide enough to apply to exempted persons, to persons in excepted employment, and to persons in special schemes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 16. — (Application of Act to persons in service of Grown.)

Major HORE BELISHA: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
I do so for the purpose of asking a question. Under this Clause the Government have power to make deductions from the pay of seamen, marines, soldiers and men of the Royal Air Force. I am credibly informed that the Government in another connection intend to make a reduction in, or take a deduction from, the pay of these persons. I want to know if the Government have considered the effect of this Clause upon the Services. I have already pointed out that an officer's widow gets a pension at a very high rate without any such deductions being made, and this proposal seems to put the naval rating and the ordinary soldier and airman in a much worse position than they occupied before. Already that position is very unfair. The Naval Estimates show
that officers' widows have considerable pensions, and that they receive those pensions in any circumstances where they are left destitute. Widows of men only get pensions where the men have been killed under the terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Frequently where there is a disaster the officer's widow gets a pension and the widow of the ordinary naval rating or serving soldier does not get a pension, although both are concerned in exactly the same accident.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I agree with the greater part of what my hon. and gallant Friend has said. We ought to know where we are in regard to the widows of soldiers, sailors and airmen. I refer to the lower deck in the Navy and the rank and file of the Army. I cannot, however, support my hon. and gallant Friend when he speaks of the pensions paid to officers' widows as being very high. Officers' widows are entitled to a meagre pension but it has always been suggested that these pensions are compensation for the fact that the pay of the naval officer is low. It is better now than formerly but in the past it was extraordinarily low and those who heard the hon. and gallant Member for Galloway (Vice-Admiral Sir A. Henniker-Hughan) speak on the Naval Estimates will recollect that he made this point and he showed that as midshipmen, we had the princely pay of 1s. 6d. a day out of which we had to pay messing allowance, uniform, and pay our naval instructor as well. In those days we were always told to remember that when we got married there was a pension of so much for officers' widows—although the Admiralty did their utmost to discourage naval officers from getting married. I think it is right to say that the pensions paid to officers' widows are not high.

Major HORE-BELISHA: They do not contribute.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: They do contribute. We are always told that pensions are only deferred pay. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend, however, with regard to petty officers, leading seamen, bluejackets, stokers, private soldiers and others, whose wives at present do not get pensions. They may be killed, or they may die in the service of the Crown and get nothing. What is
to be their position in relation to this Bill? If these amounts are to be deducted from the pay of the Services, may I ask the hon. Gentleman if anything will be done in the case, for instance, of a bluejacket who is killed in an accident where the lifeboat has been called out. I have known of men who were killed in such circumstances, and their wives and families got nothing at all.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I desire to advance one further point in support of the proposal of my hon. and gallant Friends. The pay of these soldiers is already subject to so many deductions that it has been found necessary in the Army Pay Warrant to provide that they must be left with at least 1d. per day or some such sum. Any further deductions are liable to deprive soldiers even of the paltry sum which is now left to them. It would be a splendid thing if the hon. Gentleman could accept the proposal of my hon. and gallant Friends.

Sir K. WOOD: I would point out that the proposal of the hon. and gallant Members is the deletion of Clause 16, and I do not think any Members of the Committee would desire that to be done. I quite understand, however, the motive and purpose of the hon. and gallant Members in raising this matter. They have voiced this afternoon various grievances which I have heard from time to time in connection with the persons in whom they are interested in the Navy and the armed forces of the Crown, but these matters are not appropriate to this particular Bill. Questions of the kind which have been raised should, as I said the other day, be addressed to another Minister. We are dealing here with a Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill, and all we are asking, under this particular Clause, is that, inasmuch as we are including persons in the Services in the same manner and to the same extent as others, there shall be paid the same contributions. Apart from the grievances raised by the hon. and gallant Members—with which I sympathise, in so far as I am aware of them—this is not an unreasonable proposition.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will they get the benefits?

Sir K. WOOD: Certainly. As regards the case which the hon. and gallant
Member put to me, in that particular case, the widow under this Bill would get a pension. No doubt the hon. and gallant-Gentleman has achieved his purpose by once again raising his voice on behalf of many of his constituents. But the subject, I suggest, is not particularly material to this Clause, and I hope he will now allow us to obtain the Clause which confers many benefits on many people in whom the hon. and gallant Member is interested. I said on the last occasion when this matter was discussed that if representations on these matters were made to the First Lord of the Admiralty, I had no doubt the First Lord would deal with them when he was in a position to do so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 17.—(Provisions as to Seamen.)

Captain BENN: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman, with that dialectical agility which he displays, will not suggest that I am necessarily desirous of omitting the Clause from the Bill. I only move this Amendment in order to ask him a question about the Clause. I understand it is proposed to make a special order modifying this Bill in relation to seamen. It will be remembered there were two difficulties, one about domicile, which I think has been met by an Amendment in Committee, and the second about contributions. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the collection of the contributions, or rather the distribution to the beneficiaries, was very unsatisfactory as regards health insurance in connection with seamen. Cards were lost or the societies could not identify the beneficiaries, and I believe Sir Norman Hill expressed the view that one-third of the money was lost as far as those people were concerned who ought to have it. It would be of assistance to the Mercantile Marine if the hon. Gentleman could tell us in a few words what he has in mind when he says he will make a special order to adjust this Bill to the needs of the Mercantile Marine. I take it he means to introduce a different method of collection from that followed under the health insurance, and more satisfactory to this large and important class.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD: I gladly respond to the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. So far as the question of seamen domiciled outside this country is concerned, they are no longer included in this Bill. The hon. and gallant Member raised the further question which really affects, in the first place, National Insurance, and, secondly, the administration of this Measure in its application to seamen. There have been great difficulties in administering National Insurance in regard to these men. Their cards are lost or are unstamped and a number of their contributions do not reach the approved societies for the National Insurance Fund. I do not think that is the fault of the approved societies, and I would not like to blame the men themselves on account of the nature of their occupation and the difficulties which they have to encounter. Another reason why we have not been able to formulate a scheme is the fact that all these men do not belong to one or two of the great seamen's societies as we would wish them. A portion of them are scattered up and down among the 1,700 societies which work the National Insurance Act, and, as a consequence, it has been most difficult to devise some other method of seeing that their contributions reach the Fund.
The hon. and gallant Member referred to Sir Norman Hill, who has very vigorously and earnestly urged another method with reference to the collection of the money, and who suggests that it should be done by means of schedules and that some method other than cards should be adopted. We are very favourable to that suggestion, but it would mean an Amendment of the National Insurance Act itself. As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, there is now a Commission sitting which is examining into the question of National Insurance and which we hope will report at the end of the year. The Controller of National Insurance is about to give evidence before that Commission, representing the views of the Department and of the Minister, and I understand that that evidence will support the suggestion of Sir Norman Hill in an endeavour to simplify the method. I have little doubt, if I may respectfully say so, that the Commission will come to the conclusion that some alteration has got to be made, and I think very likely that they will adopt some such scheme as that. I have given an undertaking—and I give
it to-day—that when the Commission do report, and if they report, as we anticipate, much on the lines which everybody connected with the work of seamen desires, that this system of contributions by cards and stamps, so far as they are concerned, should be abolished, we propose to deal with it in the Bill which, in any event, we are bound to bring in next year.

Captain BENN: I take it that the men's societies and unions will be fully consulted in the matter?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes. We have, in fact, already consulted them on this proposal with reference to this Bill. I, myself, received a deputation, I think, from all those interested in this matter, and they came to a unanimous decision, as I understand it, on this very suggestion, which we hope will be embodied in future legislation. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the shipowners!"] I understand that all persons interested are agreed on this matter, and we hope that when this Bill, to which I have referred, comes forward, we shall be able to make some practical suggestion in what is a case which, admittedly, needs remedying.

Mr. DAVIES: I feel sure the House will agree when T say that the Minister has given us some very important information, but, so far as I understand this Clause, it is intended to make a special Order before the Bill, to which he has referred, will he introduced, and, if that be so, I should like to make one suggestion. I think the House will have been impressed by the statement the hon. Gentleman has made in regard to the difficulties in dealing with seamen's cards, and if this Order mentioned in this Clause is made, it will have to be made before that Bill comes before the House of Commons, because I cannot see the Ministry waiting for the Bill to become an Act of Parliament before making this Order.

Sir K. WOOD: The Order referred to in this Clause is simply to determine
in the case of a ship registered in Northern Ireland, the owner of which resides, or has his principal place of business in Great Britain or of a ship registered in Great Britain the owner of which resides or has his principal place of business in Northern Ireland, whether or not persons employed on the ship are to be treated as being insured for the purposes of this Act.

Mr. DAVIES: The information given by the Minister was, at any rate, given on this Clause, and I want, if I may, to make one or two suggestions. I feel sure that the men employed on ships will be in an even greater difficulty under this new Bill than they were under the National Health Insurance Act, and I am pleased to think that the Ministry contemplate doing something with them. But I want to offer this suggestion: I have never been able to understand why the Ministry do not impress upon approved societies the advisability of transferring the few members scattered over the 1,700 societies into the appropriate society for this purpose. Let me give a case in point. There are many members of a society employed, say, as clerks, or shop workers or coal miners, who are members of approved societies not connected with seamen, and when those men join a ship, it seems to me that the Ministry ought to impress upon their approved societies that they should transfer them automatically to the appropriate approved society. I feel sure that until the Hill to which the hon. Gentleman referred becomes law something of that kind ought to be done to help the situation.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to ask whether the hon. Gentleman has looked further into the matter that I raised briefly in Committee on this Clause, and T am encouraged to do this by his very important remarks a moment or two ago, in which he outlined what would happen next year in the Bill the Government were bound to introduce. The previous speeches on this Clause have dealt with the seamen, but the Clause deals really with masters and seamen, which, I suppose, includes officers and engineers and all those who serve in ships. In the case of the merchant service, this Clause is particularly hard. In the great lines it is all right—there are superannuation and pension schemes—but in a great many of the other lines that is not the case, and if one or two shipowners stand out, the others also have to forego having a regular scheme which has been agreed to by the shipowners and officers themselves, and which, I hope, presently, with State assistance, will form part of a superannuation scheme for the officers. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the two great organisations of
the shipowners and the officers are very strong on this point, and for years they have been hammering at the doors of Whitehall to try to get some scheme through. They are willing to contribute very handsomely themselves, but it will have to be a compulsory scheme like this, or the few recalcitrant members among the officers themselves or among the shipowners can hold up the whole of this great reform in the mercantile marine. I would like to know whether the matter has been further considered since the Committee stage, and whether, when the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman referred is introduced next year, this important class of the community will not be left out.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I be allowed to thank the Government for what they have done in this matter? This is, very fortunately, one of the cases whore everybody concerned has arrived at the same conclusion. The whole of the unions and societies which are interested and the shipping organisations have all come, to the same conclusion, namely, that so far as the non-domiciled seaman is concerned, he should be kept out of the scheme, and, secondly, that early steps should be taken for dealing with the insured persons' cards. If a schedule system is not the best way of doing it, I have no doubt the Government will consult the organisations concerned, so that they fan find something better, but at present I must confine myself to thanking the Government for the promise given on the Committee stage, and now on the Report stage, to deal with this very important matter next year. The pressing case for it need not be repeated here, but I should like to emphasise the point that, until some change is made, the seafaring classes do, in fact, lose a very large sum of money to which they are entitled, and the sooner we can stop that leak the better.

Captain BENN: I desire to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 18.—(Widows' and orphans' pensions when husband or parent died before the commencement of Act.)

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment standing next, in the name of the hon.
and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy)—in page 19, line 5, after the word "force," to insert the words
or if the deceased husband or father has died or been killed through enemy action while serving in the British Mercantile Marine—.
is, I am afraid, contrary to what we have already decided in Clause 1. It does not seem to me that it would do to bring these people into Clause 18.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I had a very strong doubt about this Amendment, and I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity of explaining what I mean by it. We do make the scheme retrospective in this Clause 18 to certain widows, but not exactly to this particular class to which my Amendment refers, and I do not really see how Clause 1, therefore, would rule out my Amendment, if Clause 1 does not rule out Clause 18 itself as a whole. That is my submission to you, Mr. Speaker, and if it be right that widows now should receive their pensions if their husbands fulfilled certain conditions. I put it to you that it is for the House to decide whether widows whose husbands have fulfilled other conditions should be included, neither having made any contributions at all.

Mr. SPEAKER: I will give the hon. and gallant Member the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Is not the distinction that Clause 1 relates to the widows of insured men and Clause 18 also relates to the widows of men who are either insured or deemed to be insured, but the Amendment would bring in widows of men who are neither insured nor deemed to be insured?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On that point, is there any reason why these men should not be treated as deemed to be insured? I am referring to a particular class of seamen in merchant ships who were killed in the War, and they differ from the ex-service men in that the widows of the soldiers and sailors killed in the War automatically get pensions. In this other case, because of the Royal Warrant, they are cut out of that, and I think this Bill is a suitable occasion for remedying that defect. If it be in order, I would like to get the opinion of
the Government on it, and I will briefly put the case for the Amendment, if you will permit me, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is rather a modern practice in Acts of Parliament to deem things to be something which they are not. I am afraid it has become rather common, and on that ground I do not feel that I can rule this further Amendment out of Order. The hon. and gallant Member can, therefore, move it.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in page 19, line 5, after the word "force," to insert the words:
or if the deceased husband or father has died or been killed through enemy action while serving in the British Mercantile Marine.
As I have said, the widows of soldiers, sailors, and airmen killed in the War are already provided for automatically. In the case, however, of the men of the Mercantile Marine, they do not get a pension. Many of the lines have given pensions to the widows, and a great many have had compensation from the various funds set up for the purpose, but there are numbers who have had nothing at all, whose husbands were killed directly in the War by enemy action, while serving in mercantile ships, and I think the sense of justice of this House would say that these people should be included. That is all that I have to say on the matter, except that I have put the Amendment down as the result of a number of letters that I have received from these women in different parts of the country, whose case is a very harsh one, and who feel a sense of injustice, which I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to remedy.

Major HORE-BELISHA: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My intervention on the point of Order was really only to bring out a point which I am not quite certain that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken worthy) apprehends, namely, that the ordinary seamen are already covered by the Bill. They are deemed to be insured, and, therefore, the only class to which this Amendment would apply would be the officer class. I do not think there would be any justification for treating the officer class in the Mercantile Marine any differently from the way in which you treat the commissioned officers. They are
outside the limit of insurance on account of the rate of their remuneration, and I might further point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that, even if the Amendment were carried, it would not carry any benefit, because Clause 45 defines service dependants' pensions, in paragraph (b), as meaning
any pension or allowance payable out of moneys provided by Parliament …. to a person …. in respect of the death of some other person attributable to, or connected with, the service of that other person during the late War.
Therefore, this officer class would come under the provisions of the Clause which deals with service dependants' pensions, and they would naturally prefer the greater benefits under that Clause.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Am I to understand that all the widows of these men, of seamen, firemen and so on come in?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 19, line 18, to leave out the words "of fourteen" and to insert instead thereof the words "specified in section one of this Act."
This proposal was mentioned at an earlier stage of the Bill, but I do not think it was really fairly considered at that time. I hope very much that the House will re-adjust the matter, and give this simple Amendment, not only a hearing, but support, and induce the Minister to grant it. According to the Clause, women whose husbands are deceased at the time this Act commences will not get the widow's pension if they have not got any child under 14, though they may be keeping a child at school after the age of 14. Though under ordinary circumstances they would draw the widow's pension and the child allowance, they will not do so if they have the misfortune to have a child over 14 at the time this Act commences. I think it should be made quite clear that these Clauses, or the revised Bill, which speak of widows' pensions includes the child allowance.
A woman who has got one child and keeps it on at school would by this
Clause be excluded if the child is over 14 in January of next year. The Minister would, of course, quite naturally answer that great alterations have been made in Clause 1 which have brought in children over 14. I think, however, it was not reasonable that that Clause should be kept in its original form. There are two classes of widows who are very much affected by these proposals. First of all, there is the widow who has already got a child over 14, and is making great sacrifices to keep it at school. She is excluded by this Clause. Then there is the widow whose child becomes 14 between to-day and the starting of the Act. If my Amendment be carried, that widow will be encouraged to keep her child at school, knowing that when January comes along she will get benefit, whereas if this Amendment is defeated that widow will have no hope, and she will, therefore, take her child away at 14, and in that way the education of her child and the advantages to the country of well-educated children will be lost.
I do venture to appeal to all sides of the House. We have hon. Members who are interested in education—I believe they are. I see in his place the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Somerville). He is an educationist. There are other Members I see on the other side of the House who take a great deal of interest in education. I appeal to them to raise their voices with mine for this very small Amendment. It is not one that is going to wreck the Bill. I am not asking them to do anything that will jeopardise the fortunes of this Bill or to do anything which is going to cost a very great deal. We know from experience that if one or two of them support a proposition, and an educational advantage of this kind, very probably the Minister will give us what we ask. We on this side of the House are like the wind in the fable. We blow hard or soft, but our efforts alone are unable to get the Minister to remove the cloak of his displeasure, and our efforts are often unavailing. Members on the other side of the House, however, sitting behind the Minister, are like the sun in the fable. If they will all put out their rays, T feel that we shall do something. I appeal to hon. Members opposite who have educational interests at
heart, and in this matter the interests of the widow at heart—the widow whose child is already 14, or becomes 14 before the commencement of this Act—to urge the Minister to give this pretty small concession which will do something in the interests of education and in the interests of the children that are growing into young manhood.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to second the Amendment.
This is an Amendment to which we attach a certain importance. Might i remind the Minister of Health that arguments like those put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) who has just sat down are of a special character. This Bill is going through this House with the speed of an express train. To have got to this stage of the Bill must be quite a surprise to the Minister of Health himself. I would ask him to remember that that is due to the deliberate intention of hon. Members on this side of the House, due to the fact that we have not put down on the Paper a series of demonstration Amendments.
We have put down Amendments raising, it may be, small points, but real points. We did so because we thought we might get some reward. We said to ourselves: "If we put forward good points, we shall get a few more Amendments carried. Up to the present, so far as the Bill has gone, we have not had anything. Here, however, is an Amendment in which the Minister can give that which would not cost very much money, because it deals with a small class of women who will present no problem for two years. It must appeal to everybody's sympathy. The point is really a substantial one. We are dealing with women who are already widows. By the extension of the provision for children at school, the children's allowance, now given in the case of the widows, will be given for children who remain in education up to the age of 16.
There is a curious contradiction in this matter. If the child at school is not yet 14, the mother may keep the child at school up to 16, and receive the widow's allowance. If the child happens to be over 14, and is already at school, then if the mother keeps the child at school till 16 she receives no children's allowance at all. That is an anomaly. It is an anomaly
which bears pretty hardly upon women of the most deserving kind. There are women who have been ready to keep their children at school till 16, although they have had no pension, laying out their own resources. We believe that these are among the most heroic women in the whole community. As a matter of fact, more than one Member of this House has only got here because his mother, left in that position, a widow without resources, made a sacrifice in order to give her boy a good education. I know the Minister of Health has a logical answer. His answer, of course, is that these women have not contributed for anything at all, and, therefore, they ought to be satisfied with whatever they get. We quite understand that argument. It is a good argument. But the fact is that other existing widows have not contributed, and they are getting other benefits. These are among the most deserving of women, and for that reason we ask the Minister to give us this small Amendment, at quite a modest cost, and it will satisfy this particular case.

Sir K. WOOD: The speeches of both the hon. Members who have spoken have put this Amendment in the most favourable light that it was possible to put it. We do appreciate the accelerated speed with which this Bill has gone through. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) said that we doubtless were surprised at it. But I would tell hon. Members that nowadays time is money. I have been struck by the suggestion made by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) and his illustration. Hon. Members opposite have in this matter blown both hot and cold. At one time, they have said that this Bill is a crime. To-day, they are asking for more benefits. The Clause which the hon. Member is seeking to enlarge is a Clause which gives a free gift to a very large number of women in this country on the conditions laid down. Hon. Members are seeking for further benefits, and I hope that subsequently they will not forget to point out the very many benefits that are conferred by this Bill in this particular relationship. The hon. Member now suggests that we should increase the benefits of widows. That, he suggests, would be an advantage in two ways. But it would mean not only extending the widow's allowance for another two years on
account of her child remaining at school till 16, but it would bring in a- very large additional number of widows as well. I am bound to advise the House to reject this Amendment, mainly on the ground of cost. To some hon. Members, perhaps, the Amendment seems to involve a rather small sum. The acceptance of this Amendment, it is calculated, would cost approximately £1,100,000 in the first 10 years of the Act. That is, perhaps, not a large sum of money, but more perhaps than hon. Members anticipated. That is our present advice in this matter.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: But this provision disappears altogether in two years. It is a wasting provision.

Sir K. WOOD: Still, the figure I have given of £1,100,000 is the effect of this Amendment over the next 10 years.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It does disappear in two years. It only refers to the cases of children who are over 14 years of age to-day, and who come out of the scheme when they reach 16, even if they keep at school. Surely, the hon. Gentleman is confusing this Amendment with one on the next Sub-section relating to a somewhat similar matter.

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. The number of children who are now under 14, and who under the provisions of this Amendment come in—

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: No.

Sir K. WOOD: Under the hon. Member's Amendment, they come in later, and then go on from 14 to 16. At any rate, the advice that we have been given under these circumstances is what I have stated, and I do not think we can do more than we are doing in this particular direction.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been drawn to this fact, that a woman with children under 14 to-day should continue to get benefit after they have reached 14. The only effect of this Amendment is to deal with women whose children are already over 14 and still at school.

Major HORE-BELISHA: I only rise because the Parliamentary Secretary has not answered the point put by the hon.
Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), who moved the Amendment. The real substance seems to be that you are going to get a very unfortunate contrast between two classes of person, and a contrast is particularly undesirable because the present-day widow already has a very considerable grievance. If one can judge by the correspondence one receives, nearly the whole of the criticism against this Bill is coming from the present-day widow. A woman who becomes a widow a week after the Act is not only to get a widow's pension for the rest of her life, but allowances for her children up to 16. The woman who becomes a widow a week before gets no widow's pension for her life, and is only to have an allowance for her children until the children are 14. Therefore, in a double respect you are treating the present-day widow very harshly and unfairly. You are not only depriving her completely of a widow's pension, but you are not giving the same chance to her children as to the children of the woman who becomes a widow after the Act.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that this is a gratuitous payment. We are distributing largess. Surely, the woman who falls a widow a week after this Act is also the recipient of largess. She has made no contribution towards the benefits which she will receive for the rest of her life, nor has her husband made any substantial contribution. For at least 15 years, I imagine, the State will be distributing largess, because the weekly contributions cannot possibly be sufficient to justify payments of 10s. a week for the rest of a person's life. If it is a question of distributing largess, it is better to distribute it on a sane principle than on an insane principle, and it is better not to create an anomaly of this kind which will give rise to a grievance in respect of two women living next door, one a young woman about 21, who will get a pension for the rest of her days, and another a woman who has brought up a family to whom you are saying, "We will not assist you to keep your children at school till 16." Unless this Amendment, which is a very simple one, is accepted, you will give rise to a grievance which will never abate and which will constantly agitate people until the Act is amended. We shall never hear the end of
these things, and it is better to spend £1,000,000 compensating the widow who is not going to get a pension all her life than to withhold it and make an injustice.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I take it that the hon. Gentleman the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) means the case of a widow who has made a sacrifice to keep her youngest child at school up to the age of 16. I think that widow is especially worthy of help. If the cost is not too great. I would suggest to the Minister that it would be as well to grant this Amendment. The class of widow to whom this help would be granted is the most deserving kind. One is conscious of the very great benefit which is being conferred by this Bill, but one does not press the matter at an unreasonable charge to the country, and I would ask the Minister to consider it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I rise to answer the question by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). He is usually clear headed about the reading of his own Amendments, but I am rather surprised to see him tripping on this occasion. He appears to think that the whole effect of this Amendment would pass away in two years. Surely, he has not appreciated what is the effect of the Amendment. The Clause deals with the case of a widow of a man who died before the commencement of the Act, and it provides that she is to have a pension which is to go on until six months after the time when her youngest child has attained fourteen. He proposes, instead of that, to put in words, the effect of which would be that she would get that pension until six months after the child had attained the specified age, either the age of fourteen or the age of sixteen, up to which the child remains under full-time instruction in a day school.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: What the right hon. Gentleman says confirms me that he has misunderstood the Amendment I am moving. The Amendment is the first of the two Amendments in my name, and refers to paragraph (c). The paragraph to which he refers is (d), and I am moving a later Amendment to that paragraph. That is what I thought when the Under-Secretary said it would go on for years. The Amendment is in page 19, line 18, to leave out the words "of
fourteen," and to insert thereof the words "specified in Section one of this Act." That only makes this difference, that when any of those children are over 14, and are at school, they will be able to get a pension. The widow will only got her own part of the pension six months after the child is 14, but she will get a child allowance in respect of that one child for the brief period between the present age and the age at which it is taken away from school, which must be before 16. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I quite agree. I have misunderstood it. I was under the impression that the Amendment referred to paragraph (d) and not (c). The effect with regard to paragraph (c) would be to give an additional allowance in the case where the widow of a man who died before the Act was already keeping her child at school before the age of 14. The answer to that is that she has already adapted herself to her conditions. We are not dealing here with the contributory principle, but with what we can afford to give to people who neither themselves nor through their husbands have paid any contributions, and we have gone as far as we can go in that direction.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Now that the actual character of the Amendment is understood, will the Minister give the correct figure which takes the place of the £1,100,000 which the Parliamentary Secretary gave and which I think should be a few tens of thousands for two years.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid the figure is too correct. I have made a mistake, but the actuaries did not.

Mr. HARRIS: I happen to represent a very large number of women who live in the East End of London, largely on the borders of the City of London. A large number of them are poor widows who have to keep their families and they go out charring. I do know the great efforts many of those women make to keep their children at secondary and central schools in order that when they grow up they can make the best use of their abilities. These women are now to be under a new sense of grievance. A next-door neighbour, just through the accident of circumstance, may be getting not only a pension for herself for life but
assistance for her children to stay at school up to 16, while another woman who is keeping her family together, through no fault of her own, because she. has not come within the purview of this Act, may have to pay the whole cost of the educacation and maintenance of the child. There is a very important principle in making law, and that is that there should be no differentiation between various classes of people. I beg the Minister to make some concession, however small, to relieve what is a real grievance felt by a great number of women who would have been quite prepared to contribute or whose husbands might have been prepared to contribute if this Bill had been an Act of Parliament a year before. As he has recognised the principle that people are to get some concessions from the State, I appeal to him to make a concession in the way of encouraging education and encouraging women who are struggling to keep their homes together single-handed and to keep their children at school as long as possible. An appeal has boon made by an educationist of great authority behind the right hon. Gentleman, and I would ask him to give a sympathetic hearing to this strong appeal from the hon. Member.

Mr. SPENCER: Can we have an answer to the last question of the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) with regard to cost? The Parliamentary Secretary said £.1,000,000. Instead of being two years, by the law of average it is only one year. In actual fact, the child has to be at school before the woman can get a pension, and it means in the law of averages that the allowance you give is for one year. It must be a negligible cost, and surely in a small item of this character a concession could be made, because the object of the Bill is to bring in only people who have children over 14 actually at school already. Under those circumstances, seeing that the cost is so little, this is one of the points on which the Minister should meet the House and grant the small request desired.

Miss WILKINSON: The right hon. Gentleman said that the widow had already made her arrangements, and, therefore, there would be no hardship. May I point out that we are debating this matter in July. This is the end of the
school term of most of the elementary schools. August would be the time when the widow would be making up her mind whether she could afford to let her boy or girl take advantage of a scholarship and remain another two years. She has reluctantly to make up her mind that it is not possible, and the boy or girl, possibly a very bright pupil, is withdrawn from school, sent to a blind alley occupation in which to swell the ranks of the unemployed, and involve cost to the State. I know there are only a small number of cases, but it makes such a difference to the widow.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I rise to ask whether it is quite impossible for the Minister to give way on this point. The right hon. Gentleman says the widows are accommodating themselves to their present situation. I am perfectly certain they could accommodate themselves to the new situation. Surely, there cannot be a sufficient number of cases to warrant the statement that the expenditure will be over £1,000,000.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If I may say another word by leave of the House, I think that probably the figure that I gave of £1,100,000 was intended to cover the two Amendments which the hon. Member has put down on the Paper, but I do not see how I can separate them. How can you possibly make a distinction between the widow who has already kept her child at school and the other widow? Surely, if we give way in one case, we must give way in the other. I find myself in that difficulty. The actual cases may not be very large, but when you put two together we are faced with a very large demand.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is not my intention in this Amendment, and I thought it was not so in the wording, to convey that the 10s. a week paid to the widow should be continued beyond what was set out in paragraph (d). The object of paragraph (c) is to give a child an allowance which by the technical terms of the Bill is included in the words "widow's pension." There is no means of giving the child an allowance except by calling it a widow's pension. If this Amendment which I am proposing is made in paragraph (c), that will not carry the 10s. to the mother beyond the
six months after the child is 14. My intention was simply to give the child allowance to the woman whose child is already over 14 on precisely the same footing as she will at present get it if the child is a month under 14 at the time the Act comes into operation. If my Amendment covers the extension to a widow up to 16, that was not my intention. It was my intention, in moving the following Amendment to paragraph (d). What I thought, and still think, it would mean is this. Supposing a child reaches 14 in December, and the widow keeps her child at school, she continues to draw the widow's pension of 10s. a week for herself and the child allowance, but at the end of six months after the child is 14, that is, in June of next year, she drops out of the 10s. for herself, but retains the child allowance as she would under the following paragraph.

Viscountess ASTOR: I would ask the Minister if this is complicating it. Could he draft a Clause which would cover what I think most of the House desires, that the widow, whose child is at school, should draw the child's pension till the child is 16?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There are two classes, those who have children under 14 and those who have not. Paragraph (c) says widows' pensions shall be payable only if there is living at the commencement of the Act at least one child under the age of 14. Under certain conditions, that means to say that certain women, who will get no pensions under this Bill, will get a pension if this Amendment is carried. Therefore, the hon. Member's Amendment would have the effect of increasing the number of widows who would draw pensions in this respect. I think the intention was that the widows should not obtain pensions for this, but should get an allowance in respect of their children.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: But will they not drop out under Clause 16?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: As I understand this Amendment and the obvious consequences that must follow, it is that a child born on 3rd January will of necessity have to come under this proposal, and this will affect the finance of the Bill for 16 years. Assuming the child is
kept at school until it is 16, and assuming all the children were treated in this way, it would very much increase the cost of this Bill, I believe to the extent of one-seventh. That is the conclusion I have arrived at, and I wonder whether the Minister can inform me it my interpretation is correct.

Mrs. PHILIPSON: I do not think that was the intention of the Amendment. I think it was intended just to discriminate between the two widows with children, and it was intended as an inducement to keep the children with the widow. She wants to keep the child at school until it is 16 years of age, and that was the intention of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment. I hope the Minister will consider this Amendment sympathetically, and, if it is not drafted properly I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider it and to propose another Amendment to this effect, so that widows are treated equally in the matter of the children's education. There are a good many working women in the country who wish to keep their children at school until they are 16 years of age.

Mr. MELLER: We all know the difficulties with regard to the finance of this Bill, and we have had concessions made from time to time. The proposal which has been made this afternoon is one which must appeal to the House, and even if it means the expenditure of something like £1,000,000 I hope the Minister will consider it, and he might consider whether it could not be spread over two years. I would like to point out that in connection with the secondary schools many parents are being asked to sign a declaration that they will retain their children at school until they reach the age of 16. Speaking as one who has been the Chairman of Governors of Secondary Schools in connection with an Education Committee I know the difficulties we have to deal with, especially in cases where the father dies within the last two years of a child's life at. school. The Education Committee goes as for as it can and gives a maintenance grant, and it may grant a free place for the child. I know that widows do make very great efforts to keep their children at school, and this means of obtaining 10s. for the child for a period of two years may be the means of keeping many bright children at school who have gone to the Secondary Schools because of
their particular brilliancy in the elementary schools. I think this is a very important matter and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to see whether some means cannot be found, even if it cost £500,000 or £1,000,000 to finance this scheme in order that this injustice may be remedied.

Mr. BANKS: I know the sympathy of the House is with us in this matter. We have heard the Minister state what would be the effect of this Amendment, and I am in agreement with him in supposing that the Amendment in the form in which it now stands would not only impose upon us a liability for paying the children's allowance between the ages of 14 and 16 but it would also impose a liability to pay pensions to a very large number of widows who are not pensionable under the Clause as it stands. I am of the opinion that the lawyers in this House would be disposed to agree with me in my interpretation of the Amendment and it is the same interpretation as the Minister of Health has put upon it. If the right hon. Gentleman could accept another form of words which would have the effect of putting into operation the meaning of the hon. Member's Amendment I feel perfectly certain that in every quarter of this House it would find favour.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I rise to respond to the invitation which has just been addressed to me by my hon. and learned Friend. We have no further opportunities of making Amendments, and the words I have drafted have been very hurriedly put together, but I think they will carry out what I now understand is the intention of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment. Those who have the Bill before them will see exactly what is meant, and these are the words I suggest. I suggest that in page 19, line 18, at the end of paragraph (c), we should insert the words.
Provided that if a pension is payable by reason of there being no child under the age of 14, but there is a child over the age of 14, in respect of whom if the widow was entitled to a widow's pension an additional allowance shall be payable in respect of that child.
That does not give the pension in respect of the widow, and if that satisfies the House I shall be glad to move it in that form.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Under these circumstances I shall be pleased to withdraw my Amendment.

Mrs. PHILIPSON: On behalf of the members of our party, I wish to thank the Minister for his concession. The idea was right, but the words of the Amendment were wrongly drafted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think it would be better if the proposed Amendment read:
Provided that if no widow's pension is payable by reason of there being no child under the age of 14, but there is a child over the age of 14, in respect of whom an additional allowance would be payable if the widow were entitled to a widow's pension, an additional allowance shall be payable in respect of that child.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I gladly accept that version.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I presume it means provided that the child is at school.

Amendment proposed: In page 19, line 18, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that if no widow's pension would otherwise be payable by reason of there being no child under the age of 14, but there is a child over the age of 14, in respect of whom an additional allowance would be payable if the widow was entitled to a widow's pension, an additional allowance shall be payable in respect of that child.—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Captain O'CONNOR: May I suggest that the words should be "each such child"?

Colonel GRETTON: All these matters, and many others, are very desirable from many points of view, but I do look with some anxiety on the, increasing cost of this Bill. I am not aware that any proposal has been made to meet these new charges by increased contributions, and under those circumstances the cost of all these concessions, the present one included, will fall upon the taxpayer. Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea as to the cost of this concession which has been made? I am not finding fault or raising any criticism, but I venture to think it is desirable that as the House progresses in these matters we should have some idea of the demands which the Bill will make upon the Exchequer. It is quite clear that the estimate as to the charge on the Exchequer in future years will be very largely exceeded.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Of course, this is a very important matter, and we are undoubtedly adding to the charges upon the Exchequer, but obviously I cannot, at a moment's notice, give an estimate of the cost of this particular concession. May I remind the House of one or two considerations which will make it clear that this cannot, in any case, be a very heavy charge? First of all, this concession can apply only to the widows of men who died before the Bill came into operation. This is a limited number, and it cannot be increased. Secondly, it can apply only to children who are kept at school after the age of 14, and that, again, would affect only those widows who have children and who wish them to stay on at school. It will he seen that the charge now is very different from what it would have been under the terms of the original Amendment, and I do not think we need be under any anxiety about this particular item, although I do agree that it is very necessary to keep an eye upon these charges.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 20.—(Persons over seventy entitled to old age pensions.)

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 21, line '29, to leave out Sub-section (3).
The purpose of omitting this Subsection is that we may insert it in some different form in Clause 45, which is the definition Clause. This Sub-section deals with persons who would be entitled to an old age pension under the Old Age Pensions Act by virtue of this Section, and we want to substitute for it a rather wider Sub-section dealing with persons who are entitled under this Bill.

Mr. R. DAVIES: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman, in moving to omit this Sub-section, intends to insert the words on page 1908 of the Order Paper?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.

Mr. HARRIS: Before we agree to the omission of this Sub-section, I would like a little more, explanation. Right through the Bill there are references to old age pensioners over 70 who have rights under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1924.
During the Committee stage I made various endeavours to get a clear definition of their position. The impression conveyed to me in looking through the Bill, and it is the impression of a great number of others, is that the basis of our old age pension scheme is in future to be contributory, and if one reads this Clause it seems to be quite clear as to their right being dependent upon contributions under this Bill. That may be a good thing or a bad thing, but it is a departure from the principle accepted by Parliament and the nation of the rights of old people to get an old age pension from the State without contributions. That principle has been accepted, not only in our own country, but throughout the British Empire. For many years before that principle was accepted here people in Australia and in New Zealand, on reaching a certain age, were entitled to old age pensions. Under this Bill brought in to deal with widows and orphans we have a departure from that principle, and I think I am right in saying that if we pass this Sub-section we are establishing it that no longer will old people be entitled to old age pensions under the original scheme as passed in 1908. I think that is a very grave departure, and if it is to be made it should be made clear to the people, who ought to know exactly what their position is.
Or am I to understand that there are going to be two classes of old age pensioners, one class who are contributors, receiving full benefits, without qualification, and on the other hand, another class, not contributors, who are going to get qualified old age pensions? If that distinction is to be made there will be a feeling of injustice and a sense of grievance, and before we agree to a withdrawal of this Sub-section the Minister ought to make the position quite clear. If the foundation of the old age pension scheme is to be on a contributory basis the sooner that is stated the better for everybody concerned.

Captain BENN: I think it would be desirable to have a clear statement from the Minister on this point. There has been some confusion, though I think it was cleared up to some extent on Committee stage. The object of the Bill appears to be to transfer the old age pension from the non-contributory to the contributory basis, so that, not only is this Bill contributory, but people who
otherwise would have looked forward to a non-contributory old age pension are about to be asked to pay for it. Could that be cleared up, and could the Minister tell us how much it is expected to save the Exchequer by this alteration in the scheme of 1908?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will answer the hon. and gallant Member, though the point does not arise here at all. What we are dealing with is a Sub-section referring to the meaning of certain passages in the Hill which say that certain people are entitled to benefits by virtue of their relationship to other people who are entitled to old age pension by virtue of this Bill. A person may be entitled to a pension by virtue of this Bill and also by virtue of the Old Age Pensions Acts, and what we want to show is that the person who is entitled to both is, for the purpose of this Bill, deemed to be entitled to it under this Bill. Take, for example, the paragraph to be found at the bottom of page 20 of the Bill. It says:
(c) If being a woman who has attained the age of 70 she is the wife or widow of a man, who is or has been entitled to an old age pension under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1924, by virtue of paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this Sub-section.
The question may arise, Is a man entitled to an old age pension under the Act or this Bill. It was to make those points clear that this Sub-section was originally put in, and it is because those points arise on some other Clauses than the one now before the House that I am going to put this Sub-section in another place in the Bill.

Mr. T. THOMSON: Will an individual have an option of choice as to which Act it will be that he gets his pension from, or will he be compelled to take it under this Bill, that is, on the contributory basis, and not to take it on a non-contributory basis?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman still has not got the point. Suppose a woman is entitled to a pension by reason of the fact that her husband is entitled to a pension under the Old Age Pension Act by virtue of this Bill. The question arises whether that man is or is not entitled to this pension by virtue of this Bill. He may be entitled to it by virtue of the Old Age Pension Act, and this Clause says that
if he is entitled to it anywhere under this Bill then the woman in entitled to her pension and will receive it accordingly.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 21.—(Disqualifications.)

Mr. BECKETT: I beg to move, in page 21, line 41, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that in such case the woman shall have the right of appeal to the court of referees.
My friends and I who are responsible for putting down this Amendment are not quite sure, after a careful study of the Bill, whether we are asking the Minister to do something that he has not intended to do previously, or whether we are asking him to do something which he has already intended in Clause 29 to carry into effect without this Amendment. We have consulted very eminent and learned Members of this House and they have been unable to give us any very definite opinion as to whether our Amendment is covered by Clause 29 or not. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to see whether he cannot accept our Amendment, or some similar Amendment, which will make the intention of the House more clear to the people who have to administer the Act. When the matter was discussed previously, after we had objected to the whole principle contained in this Clause, there was a long discussion as to the exact meaning of cohabitation, and how it was to be defined, and I very distinctly understood the right hon. Gentleman to assure the Committee that he would consider preparing some clear definition of his intentions in this matter before we reached the Report stage. We are very disappointed to find that, no doubt owing to the tremendous pressure of work that he has had, he has been unable to give his attention to this matter and to redeem the soothing promise which he gave us.
I do not want to take up a great deal of time because the Amendment is almost non-controversial. We are all agreed that to allow a woman to be deprived of her pension for an offence which is not defined, on information which may not always be impartial, on the report of investigation by a local authority, which, however excellent it may be in managing municipal business, is not
made up of people to whom we can confidently leave the final discretion and consideration of the moral character of a woman—we are all agreed that that is not desirable. A town council, elected for the many business-like qualities of its members, is not necessarily the final arbiter on ethical problems, and it would be a very great pity if the woman had no appeal in such cases. Clause 29 is extremely vague as a protection for these women. As far as I can see, the words of the Amendment are very innocuous. They provide a complete safeguard against a woman using her pension wrongly, and yet they do not add in any way to the just financial burdens which the Bill will have to bear. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's view on the legal situation.

Mr. MARCH: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member has been quite misled as to any statement I made regarding a further definition of the word "cohabitation." I have not the particular passage of my speech here, but I am confident that the hon. Member will find—

Mr. BECKETT: If I implied that that promise was given, I did not intend to do so. All that I intended to imply was that at the end of the Debate the right hon. Gentleman said he would see whether the whole of this Clause could be defined more clearly.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Then I need not go further into that matter. I have investigated the Clause and I am advised that the insertion of the words in Clause 29, which I promised in Committee —the words "or decision" after the word "award"—will make impossible any doubt as to the opportunity of a woman to appeal to the Court of Referees. That makes the matter absolutely clear. There was some question as to whether, in Clause 21, the action of the Minister was not rather a decision than an award. We, therefore, made the words "award or decision." The Amendment is unnecessary because the appeal asked for is already given in the Clause.

Mr. BECKETT: May I take it that there is no doubt in the right hon. Gentleman's mind that the woman will have always the right of appeal covered by the Amendment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is so.

Major HORE-BELISHA: The right hon. Gentleman ought to explain to the House how this Clause will operate if the Amendment is not carried. In the discussion on the Committee Stage a very strong feeling was expressed about this Clause. It is really a most revolutionary procedure that this Clause introduces into English legislation, as it invests the Minister with a moral jurisdiction, and it is important, if we are to initiate legislation of that kind, that we know exactly where we are. The intention of the Clause is quite sound. It is obviously wrong that a woman should be allowed to defraud the public by cohabiting with a man when she should marry; but to try to secure what is quite a just aspiration by using language of this kind is laying yourself open to a great many injustices which may appear in the future. Who is going to decide on this question of cohabitation? How is the woman to be notified that she has lost her pension as a result of cohabitation? Is she to go one morning to draw her pension and suddenly to learn that without more ado she is to be deprived of her pension. Is the charge to be specified against her in writing, and what kind of appeal will she be able to have? Is an indictment to be delivered, making specific accusations against the woman that during such and such a period she was cohabiting with such and such a man, or is the charge to be couched in quite vague language? The Minister is introducing something that is unknown in British law if I am correctly informed, namely, the creation of an offence which is not defined.

Mr. SPEAKER: We have gone beyond that point. The only question now is whether these words with regard to appeal should conic in this Clause, or in a subsequent Clause.

Major HORE-BELISHA: I appreciate that, but on the question of appeal I was merely asking what kind of appeal the woman could have under that subsequent Clause? Before she can appeal it is necessary to establish an offence. I am asking how the offence is to be established, and what form the appeal is to take. It is not an ordinary appeal. In the court of first instance, if I may call it that, you must have established the charge. While I expect that in general matters any one
can go before the Court of Referees, if you have not in the first case established a specific charge against the woman, how is she to appeal? What evidence can she call and what evidence is to be called against her?

Mr. BECKETT: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the Amendment. As I have said, if large numbers of learned gentlemen cannot interpret the definitions, it is rather difficult for anyone else to do so; but as the right hon. Gentleman seems confident that his interpretations are correct, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir CYRIL COBB: I beg to move, in page 22, line 2, after the word "section," to insert the words "such of."

This Amendment is meant to pave the way for further Amendments to Schedule 3. There was an appeal made in Committee for an explanation from the Minister as to why a woman or a man who is entitled to an old age pension, because that man or woman has had to enter a Poor Law establishment, by reason of sickness or any other cause, should be deprived of the pension that he or she would otherwise have enjoyed. An answer could not be given on the Committee stage, because the question was raised only on the Schedule and not on the Clause. My Amendment is moved now, so that when we come to the Schedule we can deal with the matter there also. The main reason why on the merits this question should be discussed is that it has been impressed upon the House that this is a contributory scheme. Surely it is not right that the men or women whom I have mentioned should be deprived of benefits from their own contributions because they happen to be so unfortunate as to be obliged to enter a Poor Law establishment for health or other reasons.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This Amendment raises rather an important point of principle, and, as has been pointed out,. must be read in conjunction with a suggested amendment of the Schedule. What is asked for is the upsetting of a practice which has hitherto prevailed, namely, that the rates should be relieved by reason of the benefits given under the Pensions Act. What underlies this pro-
vision, which we have taken from the Old Age Pension Act, is that we do not desire to do anything which would encourage people to go into these institutions. We do not make any similar provision with regard to out-relief. What we want to do is to encourage people to keep out of the Poor Law institutions as much as possible, and we have found, in our experience under the Old Age Pensions Act, that every effort is made by the people concerned and by their relatives to help them to keep out of such institutions. A provision such as that in this Amendment, which would mean that they could go in and draw a pension while in the institution, seems to be one which would be likely to work in an opposite direction to that desired. After that explanation I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.

Mr. HARRIS: There is a difference between this claim and the old age pensions position. The latter is a non-contributory scheme. It is not right to say that the man is getting money from the State and at the same time getting money from the local authorities. This money a man is entitled to because of his contributions.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The principle is in the National Health Insurance Act.

Mr. HARRIS: The State has no right to say that if a man through infirmity goes into an institution, he should suffer. A large percentage of people go into the workhouse for physical reasons, and are forced to take shelter and to ask for the personal care of a Poor Law institution. That is quite sound in principle. The whole justification of a contributory scheme is that the man gets his pension, not as a favour from the community, but as a right to which he is entitled because

of contributions made, in just the same way as he may have contributed to an insurance company run on commercial lines. The Amendment ought to be persisted in because it is the foundation of the whole scheme.

Mr. DAVIES: I am glad that this Amendment has come from the other side of the House. It is a very important Amendment. I would not have risen but for the interjection of the Minister. I should be surprised if that interjection carried weight with Members of the House. It gave me the impression that the principle underlying the Bill in this connection is already established in the National Health Insurance Act of 1911. As a matter of fact, this is the practice under National Insurance. I am fairly familar with it, and I think I am rightly stating the position. Where a person is entitled to National Health Insurance sickness or disablement benefit, the approved society pays that sum to the dependant in respect of the man while he is in an institution. Where he, has no dependants, he can remain in an institution for two, three, or four years, and the amount though not payable while he is in the institution it is paid when he comes out of the institution. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is really a fundamental difference between benefits under this Bill and benefits under the Old Age Pensions Act. When a man pays contributions under this Bill, the benefits ought to be paid to him and regarded as his own. I think it is a good thing in the interests of those people that this Amendment has been brought forward, and I trust it will be pressed to a Division.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House Divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 228.

CLAUSE 22.—(Residential Qualification of Pensioners, etc.)

Mr. T THOMSON: I beg to move, in page 22, line 19, after the word "Britain," to insert the words
except when resident in another part of His Majesty's Dominions.
It seems to me an extraordinary provision coming from the Conservative Government that when a man, or woman has paid in for years to this contributory scheme, and happened to live in this country, that when going abroad or to the Colonies, they are to forego the advantage to which they have contributed for many years. It seems a new imperialist doctrine that when you go to the Colonies you are to be cut off from those benefits to which you have contributed. I should have thought that this Government would not have put in another deterrent towards people emigrating. There are a good many grounds for encouraging people to stay at home, but it does seem to me the height of folly to penalise people who are going abroad and to the Colonies by docking them of a pension to which they have contributed. I could quite understand it when pensions were on a non-contributory basis, but surely it is an entirely different thing when you are working on a contributory system, and possibly many contributions have been made to an old age pension, when for reasons possibly beyond their control, people should go abroad, and then be docked. We know of many cases where people getting on in years wish to join
their sons or daughters overseas. One would have thought that that legitimate aspiration would have been encouraged. I do submit that this is a reactionary proposal and an extraordinary proposal coming from a party that calls itself the Imperialist party. I hope, therefore, that on further consideration, the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment. I do not suggest that they should continue to pay the pension—although I think there are good grounds for doing so—when people go abroad. That might be accepting too much. But when people move from one part of the Empire to another, they should be entitled to their pension, and seeing they have paid, possibly for many years, for this pension, surely they are entitled to it whether they remain here or go to the Colonies.

Mr. HARRIS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I like to regard the Empire as one. It has been built up as a common heritage of our people, and now we are going to impose penalties on people moving about freely throughout the commonwealth of nations which we call the British Empire. In many of these cases it will be found in practice that the children of widows will have emigrated to Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, and, when a widowed mother who wishes to join her children comes to make arrangements to travel out to them, she will find, even if she decides to go to another part of the British Empire, that the State will penalise her
by withdrawing the pension to which she is entitled, not through any generosity of the State, but through contributions made by her late husband. That is a kind of anti-Empire spirit which will do much to weaken the bonds of Empire, and for a Minister bearing such a distinguished name, which has often been associated with the Imperial spirit, to impose a penalty of this kind, is a very unkind act towards the whole spirit of the British Empire.
When it is suggested, as it was in Committee, that there would be difficulties of administration, that ignores the fact that we have our direct representatives, firstly, in the Governor-General, and, secondly, in our Dominion representatives in all parts of the Empire, while, thirdly, there is our banking system, and there would be no difficulty, either by mutual arrangement through the Post Office or through one of the banks, in making the necessary payments. Such payments are made in the case of officers of the British Army who are entitled to pensions, and they or their widows can go abroad and live anywhere they like, and still draw their pensions. In the case of this contributory scheme, people are asked to join by making contributions out of their wages, and they are now going to be told that, if circumstances demand that they should emigrate to Australia, New Zealand, or Canada, they are going to lose the benefits of this Bill.
I have been one of those who, rightly or wrongly, have supported the contributory principle, because I have felt that it will involve no feeling of receiving charity or of getting a concession from the community, but that the benefits will be given as a right, in the. same way as in the case of a friendly society's benefit scheme or a commercial insurance company. I think this strikes at the very principle of the Bill, and I do hope the Minister will make this small concession, which will not cost him anything, because these benefits are rights to which the contributors are entitled by their contributions. In my view, nothing is going to weaken the links of Empire more than the imposition of penalties on emigration, making it difficult for people to move about freely, and to regard all parts of the Empire as one in fact as well as in name.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This Amendment would not in any way meet the argument which has been adduced in support of it by the two hon. Members, who have argued that pensions have been paid for, and, therefore, ought to be paid to the contributors wherever they might be. The hon. Members are making their Amendment apply to the British Dominions, and I am glad to note this new development of the Imperial spirit on those benches, even though it takes an impracticable form. Perhaps, in course of time, their education may progress, and they may do something to assist us in helping to back up the. Dominions when they are able to introduce schemes similar to that which this country is going to enjoy when this Bill becomes an Act, and when we shall be able, under Clause 23, to make reciprocal arrangements with them. All I need say-on this Amendment, which was fully debated in Committee, is that it would be impracticable to carry it out.

Mr. SPENCER: I deny the right of any Minister to put in a Clause of this character, in justice to those who have made the contributions. I have maintained throughout these Debates that the very word "pension" is a misnomer in this connection. It is not a pension at all, but more in the nature of an annuity, because it is bought jointly by the workman and the employer, with a small contribution by the State. Legislation of this kind is the worst form of bureaucracy that you can have. We on this side of the House are sometimes accused of being desirous of setting up a great bureaucracy in connection with nationalisation, but I should never agree to a form of bureaucracy in which there were three parties making contributions, whether in money, labour or services, and in which the party making the least contribution claimed the right to dictate. That is what the Government are claiming in this instance. They claim by this Clause, if it is carried to its logical conclusion, to have the right to say to a man or a woman, (hat if they go abroad their pension is stopped. The Clause says:
A sum shall not be paid on account of a pension—
(a) to or in respect of any person while that person is absent from Great Britain.
It is conceivable that a man who has been a thrifty workman may, at the age
of 65, when he gets his pension, want to go, say, to Paris, and there is no reason why a widow, if her husband has made contributions towards a pension for her, should not have the right to do the same thing. There might be more ground— though I deny even that—for doing this kind of thing if the person concerned were going to reside out of the country permanently, but even in such circumstances, after the annuity has been purchased by weekly contributions, I deny the Minister and the State the moral right to do this. Suppose that an insurance company, from whom an annuity had been purchased, were to claim, when it fell due, the right to dictate what should be done with it. Immediately the client would say that, so far as he was concerned, he was not going to accept those terms, but this is a compulsory contribution, and a person has no freedom to decide whether he shall or shall not pay it. The Government says that anybody in an insurable trade must make contributions, and I maintain that when the benefit falls due that person has a perfect right to demand that he shall be able to do as he likes with the pension when it has been granted. I deny that there is any right to take it away in any circumstances or on any consideration. If it had been non-contributory, there might have been some justification, but, when an annuity—it is not a pension—has been purchased, I maintain that neither this Government nor anyone else is justified in taking advantage of the contributors as they are seeking to do by this Clause. This Amendment ought to be accepted in justice to the contributors, and neither on the ground of equity or fairness can the Government sustain the position they are taking up.

Major CRAWFURD: The right hon. Gentleman was pleased to be facetious on account of the reasons which were advanced by my hon. Friend in support of the Amendment, and facetious as to the attitude of the Liberal party with regard to the Empire. The right hon. Gentleman is the last person in the world who ought to utter a gibe of that kind. Remembering the history of South Africa, and what was done by his Friends and by the Liberal party in that case, and remembering the confession, with regard to the history of South Africa, made by his right hon. colleague the Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs two or three years ago, he is the last person in the world, even on those benches, who ought to utter a taunt of that kind. This case is just such another where the so-called Imperial party is Imperialistic in talk but anti-imperialistic in action, and where those who are taunted with not being Imperialistic are those who are suggesting what is really, of two courses, the one that will do the Empire the more good. Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two additional questions. Is it true, as suggested by the hon. Member who has just sat down, that a temporary absence from this country on the part of a pensioner will preclude him from receiving a pension, because that is a very important and a very substantial point? Let me put another question. The Clause reads as follows:
A sum shall not be paid on account of a pension—
(a) to or in respect of any person while that person is absent from Great Britain.
Does he or does he not know, and can he tell us, whether Great Britain includes Northern Ireland, because on the face of it it does not seem to include it.
Finally, the argument which has been advanced from these benches, and, indeed, from above the Gangway too, is that it is not in the interests of the Empire that this discrimination should be made when people leave this country and go to one of our Dominions. The right hon. Gentleman, I suppose having nothing better to say in reply to the Amendment, suggested that the whole argument fell to the ground because my hon. Friend had not taken it to its logical conclusion and urged its adoption in the case of those who went to some country abroad. My hon. Friend said specifically that is what he would have liked to move, but he did not expect to get all he wanted and he moved what he thought would most certainly commend itself to hon. Members opposite. If I am not going outside the bounds of Parliamentary language—I do not think so far in the course of the few months I have been a Member of the House I have done that—I want to add something to what my hon. Friends have said. My hon. Friends who moved and seconded the Amendment put as their main argument, in fact almost their only argument, that it was doing a wrong to individuals and to the Empire if you
were going to discriminate against persons who left this country and went to some other part of the British Empire to live. I entirely agree with that point of view, but I want to put another. It seems to me to be wrong if the doings of the British Government in respect to any of its citizens, whether they settle in this country or go to a foreign country, or to another part of the Empire, can fairly be characterised as highway robbery, and it seems to me that these provisions come very near to that. These are not voluntary contributions. They are compelled to contribute, perhaps for a large number of years, on the ground that they are going to get certain benefits, and at the end of the time you deprive them of those benefits after you have taken their money for years, and that is very little removed from theft. Therefore, I add that argument to those which have been advanced.

Major HORE-BELISHA: We, of course, feel very keenly about this on these benches. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that one of the greatest objections to the pre-War Old Age Pensions Act is the Clause, upon which this is modelled, which prevents a visit to the Dominions by the recipient of an old age pension. Many of these old people desire to join their children in the Dominions— it is quite a common instinct—and the children have not enough money to get the old people out there, but the 10s. would make all the difference. These old people at present are prevented from going, and why you should continue a restriction of that kind in a contributory scheme it is quite impossible to understand. They cannot even go to Ireland. Why should they not, if they have spent a life of toil in this country, go and join their children in Ireland? It should not be very difficult to accept an Amendment which would enable them to do that. The hon. Member who spoke last asked whether or not Northern Ireland was included in this Clause, because it is customary to refer nowadays to Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The words "Northern Ireland" do not appear here, so you leave some of these old people in considerable doubt whether they can go there. If they can they will have the satisfaction of knowing that if they are temporarily absent over the
border, from whatever cause, they cannot draw their pension for that particular week. It seems not only anti-Imperial and immoral but perfectly ridiculous to insert a provision of this kind.
I wanted really to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. I put it on the Committee stage, and the Parliamentary Secretary answered it, as I thought, satisfactorily. Of course, this Sub-section as it now stands would rule out the Services from getting pensions, and their widows, if they were settled abroad. I pointed out to the Parliamentary Secretary that there was nothing uncommon in a sailor, a soldier or an airman settling abroad on his station, and there was nothing uncommon in the widow of such a man settling abroad if she had joined her husband during his service. Such cases might arise, and I desired to know whether they were covered. The Parliamentary Secretary went into the matter and assured me he would make Regulations to cover these persons under a later Clause. I want to know whether that promise holds good and whether he is satisfied that such members of the Services who have contributed to this scheme will not be penalised under this Clause. The Minister accepted an Amendment of mine on the next Clause, which specifically exempted the Services from its terms. I wish he could have inserted a similar Sub-section in this Clause so as to ensure, at any rate, that the Services and their dependants would not be ruled out.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: The Minister's main argument against the Amendment was that it was impracticable. I take it he means they would have difficulty in tracing the after-life of pensioners and dependants. That may be so, but I should like to ask what is the practice now in regard to other pensioners of the State. The fighting Services are able to get their pensions in whatever part of the globe they settle. I want to know what is the practice, and whether any difficulty is experienced in the payment of pensions either to widows or dependants, or to the pensioners themselves, to the possibly large number of civil servants who may settle in other parts of the globe. I have never yet heard it raised in the House or elsewhere that a civil servant who gets a pension is disqualified on any residential basis in
any part of the globe, and not necessarily within the Empire. It may be argued that this kind of social insurance is not on quite the same basis as the pension given to a civil servant. I suggest that that is on the same basis. We are discussing a contributory scheme. I have never heard any civil servants discussing pensions in relation to service and emoluments who have not argued that the pension is taken into account in fixing his emoluments and that, in fact, the pension which the civil servant gets is received because he has contributed to it in regard to salary during his service to the State. There is a very close analogy between the principle of giving a pension to a civil servant and the principle of giving a pension to another member of the community who, in industry or otherwise, has served the State equally as well as the more favoured member of the community who has served in the Civil Service. Will the Minister explain what is the practice in the case of a Civil Service pension and the case of a pension in the fighting service. We are entitled to some better explanation. What difficulties are experienced, and what are the grounds for suggesting that we cannot adopt the same practice in regard to ordinary members of the community

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: I did not hear the views expressed by the Minister of Health, but there seems to be some force in the arguments advanced in support of the Amendment. This is a contributory scheme, and we are telling the people of this country that they are entitled to these pensions as a right. We cannot continue to do that if we say, "You must not do this or that. You must live as we want you to do, and not as you yourself want to live." There is some difficulty in regard to a person who is resident overseas and not in a British Dominion; but there is no reason that can be advanced why a pension should not be paid to a person who is resident within the British Empire. It would be practical to suggest that the payment of the pension should be made quarterly to those persons who are not resident in Great Britain. There could be no objection taken to that course by the person who has paid contributions and become entitled to a pension. I know of Army officers who are resident in
Egypt, Canada, and South Africa, who have their pensions sent out to them. There is no reason why the people, who are affected by this Bill, who have paid their contributions, and have become entitled to the pension as a right, should not receive the pension when they go to the Dominions.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have endeavoured to give serious answers to serious arguments, but I must admit that the tone of the first two speakers on this Amendment did not strike me as entirely serious, and I did not feel called upon to repeat at length the arguments which were put forward on the Committee stage, but as the matter has been taken up in other quarters more seriously—

Mr. THOMSON: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman is generally so courteous, that I must ask him to withdraw what he has just said. Every word that I said was meant to be serious. There was nothing flippant in it. When the right hon. Gentleman suggests that one was not serious, it is an unfounded insinuation.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: When the hon. Member undertook to inform us what was the truly Imperial spirit, I must admit that I could not take that seriously. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]

Mr. HARRIS: I happen to be a son of the Empire, and I know as much about the Empire as the right hon. Gentleman. My mother was born out there, and my father was a settler out there, and I have lived many years in the Dominions The right hon. Gentleman has no right to make an insinuation of that kind.

Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that his remark in regard to the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), who served throughout the War, is entirely courteous?

Captain GARRO-JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that he is the only Member of the House who has the interests of the Empire at heart? Whenever the Empire is mentioned, it seems to be like a red rag to a bull to the right hon. Gentleman and incites him to all sorts of indiscretions, which only delay the consideration of the Bill.

Mr. THURTLE: If hon. Members below the Gangway are so anxious to be known as the Imperial party, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not take that credit away from them.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will proceed with what I was about to say. I have been asked what is the actual effect of the Clause. I have been asked whether the result of the Clause will be that if a man or a woman who is entitled to a pension go abroad for a short period, they will be deprived of their pension. That is not the effect of the Clause. The pension cannot be paid to them while they are abroad, but if they come back again within three months, they can then draw the whole of the arrears which have accumulated during their absence.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Only three months' arrears?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That question is raised on another Amendment, and therefore I have not discussed it. The effect of the Clause is that temporary absence does not deprive them of anything, except that they do not get the pension until they come back. The term "Great Britain" does not include Northern Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER:" Or the Channel Islands?"] Those questions were answered in Committee, when we had an extensive lesson in geography from an hon. Member opposite.

Mr. SPENCER: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that paragraph (b) is related to paragraph (a)? They can be read together, so that if a person goes abroad to live he will not fee entitled to a pension, and if he remains abroad Longer than three months he will not be able to draw anything at all.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The first part of paragraph (a) says that no pension can be paid to a person or in respect of a person while that person is abroad. The second paragraph says that if they do not draw the money within three months after the date on which it becomes payable, they cannot get it. Therefore, if a person goes abroad, and comes back within three months, that person can get the whole of the pension which has accumulated during the three months, but if that person goes abroad and remains abroad six months, he or she can only, when he or she comes back, get three months' pension.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) asked me why we make a distinction between the contributors under this Bill and civil servants who are entitled to pensions, and men who have been engaged in the forces. Surely, he will see that on the practical side of administration there is a big difference between the two cases. In regard to the rights of the people concerned, they are laid down in the Bill, and it is not for other people to say what their rights are, other than those which are actually laid down in the Bill. Those rights are, for practical reasons, subject to certain restrictions, inherent in the scheme, and there is no question of any highway robbery.
May I point out to the hon. Member that in the cases of which he speaks the pensions are fixed in amount. They are not subject to conditions, and are not subject to change. Therefore all that has to be done is to find someone to whom the pension has to be paid. That is a different thing from the pension payable under this Bill. We have been discussing various conditions in which the pension ceases or changes. Take the case of the widow who has children under 14 years of age, and is entitled to a pension. How can we in this country keep track of what is happening to those children in some distant part of the Empire; it may be hundreds of miles from the nearest railway, and completely out of touch with this country altogether? It is impossible for us to ensure the carrying out of the conditions laid down in this Bill with regard to those people who are so far away from us.
Again, take the case of the widow whose pension ceases when she remarries. How are we to find out whether she remarries or not in a distant Dominion? It is on those points that it becomes impracticable to carry this scheme beyond the shores of this island, and it is therefore only open to us to say that where a Dominion brings in a scheme which is similar in its terms to this we shall be only too glad to make reciprocal arrangements, under which people who have contributed in that country will be able to get paid in this, and people who have contributed in this country will be able to get the benefits to which they will be entitled in that country through the Government of that country.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The right hon. Gentleman is confusing in his explanation what will be the law and what is really a moral right. There may be something in what he says about the difficulty in tracing, after they have left this country, the recipient of pensions whose continued receipt of a pension would depend on various circumstances. Surely, if he has a moral right because of his contributions, then, if he goes away from a place where he can get the pension in practicable circumstances, there ought to be some surrender value or something of that nature allowed.

Major HORE-BELISHA: I wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): I must remind the House that we are no longer in the Committee stage, and that hon. Members cannot speak more than once.

Major HORE-BELISHA: I wished to put a very important point, which I would like the right hon. Gentleman to answer, as to the promise of regulations which was made by his hon. Friend.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sure that my hon. Friend did not promise any regulations. I have looked into what my hon. Friend said, as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I have been unable to read any such promise. He said that he would look into the matter.

Mr. BROAD: The right hon. Gentleman has shown that there is some objection with regard to the handling of this matter, so far as widows and orphans are concerned. No doubt, there is a great deal in that, but he has not dealt with the position from the point of view of the old age pensioner whose pension is not conditioned on anything except the fact of being alive, and it is in those cases that hardship arises. We may not expect many widows to emigrate with their children, but we do know that a great many of our young men and women are being encouraged to go to our Colonies and settle there. As they go on, they desire their old folk to come and spend their declining years with them. There is no more difficulty in paying their pensions quarterly than in paying the ex-service man who has gone abroad. It is only a question of a certificate of
identification, and I hope that the Minister will give way on this point.
I have been given one illustration of this in connection with pre-War pensioners. An ex-police sergeant with a pre-War pension has a son in Canada. That son invited the old man and his wife to go out there and see him. While there the mother had an accident and she was unable to come home, but the man had to come home again to get his pension, and so for three years those old folk have been separated. The old lady is over in Canada and the old gentleman is over here. That is the sort of thing we want to provide for. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give way so far as the old age pensioners are concerned. In such cases there are none of the difficulties which he raises. This is a very serious Amendment, and if it comes to a question of treating the matter with hilarity I am sure that the Under-Secretary could very well be called to account by his principal as to the hilarity with which he is treating this matter, because he has been laughing all the time. If the Minister himself will deal with this matter, and not make these reflections from side to side, which take up so much time, we shall get down to the issue involved and get on with our business.

Mr. LAWSON: I think that the House will agree that there is a good deal in the argument that it would be very difficult in the case of a widow going abroad to ascertain whether she has been married or not and so on. But that difficulty does not apply to other cases. I happen to know that in the payment of pensions of ex-officers the matter has been arranged and there is no difficulty. Apart from that I do think the right hon. Gentleman must come to the conclusion that if he cannot make arrangements for paying these pensions in other countries, not alone in the Dominions but outside them, then he ought to make a serious attempt to meet the suggestion which has been put forward that he should give a surrender value or that he should commute the pension. The Minister of Pensions will tell him that when men go overseas they make arrangements and so very often a man has something to start with on the other side.
Then there is the question raised by my hon. Friend, that more and more you have families emigrating from this country
particularly to the Dominions. There are those who say that there are too many people to find employment here, and those in responsible positions are always saying that the greater part of the million who are unemployed are not likely to get employment in this country. It is a serious state of affairs. Emigration is being considered more and more. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the arguments which have been put forward, that he should at least in another place endeavour to make the arrangements necessary to give effect to some system of commutation of these pensions, if he cannot make arrangements for their payment abroad.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I quite realise the difficulty of the Minister in regard to the general concession to the general public when they go abroad, but I would ask him to consider whether it is still not too late to do something with regard to the ex-service people and the civil servants, because I do think that they are in a very different position from those who are engaged in industry. As a rule they go abroad temporarily, but it is possible that, when they have been abroad for a number of years, they may bring out their wives and families. In many cases, assisted passages are given by the Services or the Civil Service. If such a person dies on service abroad, is it possible in cases where the wife and family remain abroad to pay some commutation allowance. I do not see that there is any great administrative difficulty because possibly there would he some pension from the Department concerned, but such a provision as is suggested would remove a certain criticism which might now be applied to the scheme in regard to persons who are employed by the State. Persons who emigrate to the Dominions and who are really starting a new life, take into consideration all the various facts, but those in the Services or the Civil Service who go abroad under the conditions I have described, do not emigrate to start a new life, but go abroad in the service of their country with the intention of returning.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Is the hon. and gallant Member in order in discussing the position of civil servants and members of the other Services on this Amendment?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): I have not observed the hon. and gallant Member to be out of order.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: In reference to the Civil Service?

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I do not profess to be acquainted with all the intricate details of this Bill, but I am speaking more especially with regard to those Service people who contribute to these pensions. Candidly I am not quite clear as to whether civil servants come in, but if they do, in so far as they do come in, they ought to be treated as persons in the other Services are treated. I ask the Minister to consider the special circumstances of those who are employed by the State under the conditions I have indicated, and to see if he could not arrange to have a commutation arranged such as has been suggested. In the conditions I have mentioned it would be merely adding to what these persons are already getting from their Department.

Mr. LEE: Periodically we hear of groups of children being taken through the Dr. Barnardo's homes to the Dominions. I take it that in the future pensions will be payable in respect of many of these children who are orphans. If such children are emigrated in batches to Canada and other Dominions, it does not appear that the Bill as it stands contains any provision in regard to them. It is a rather serious point, and I ask the Minister if he has given any attention to it?

Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: If a pensioner were to take a. Cook's tour for a week on the Continent and during that week were to fall ill, and if he were to be detained for some time in a hospital on the Continent, would the Ministry deprive such a person of a pension? I raise this question because a young girl who took a Cook's tour for a week to Paris and who was laid up with rheumatic fever for three months has been refused sick benefit.

Captain GARRO-JONES: rose—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): The hon. and gallant Member has already spoken, and as this is the Report stage of the Bill he has exhausted his right.

Captain GARRO-JONES: My previous intervention was not to make a speech,
but merely to ask a question, and I sat down immediately I had asked the question. I submit that does not exhaust my right.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would again ask hon. Members to bear in mind that we are not now considering the Bill in Committee.

9.0 P.M.

Sir K. WOOD: In rising to reply to the questions which have been put, may I first assure the hon. Member who alluded to what he termed my levity, that I was not in any way commenting on any part of the proceedings in this House on the occasion to which he refers. I was endeavouring to fortify myself for the evening by reference to some other matters entirely unconnected with this Bill. As regards the children who are taken out of the country under the auspices of Dr. Barnardo's Homes, naturally they will be provided for by the institution which takes them, and I do not think any case of hardship arises there.

Mr. LEE: Supposing they had remained in this country would there not have been pensions in respect of them?

Sir K. WOOD: I can conceive a case where an order of the Court has been made transferring the custody of the children to Dr. Barnardo's Home and that case I think would be met. But if it were decided to take the children away then no doubt adequate arrangements would be made by those in charge of the home to maintain them abroad. I think, so far as the children are concerned, there can be no hardship.

Mr. LEE: They lose their rights under the Bill.

Sir K. WOOD: So far as the young lady who went to Paris is concerned what happens to her is that if she comes back she can claim the three months arrears and no more, and I do not think that is an unreasonable condition. I suggest that hon. Members have not appreciated the difficulties of administration as regard recipients who are abroad. One hon. Member suggested that not only people in the British Dominions but even persons in foreign countries should be paid. I am not now raising any question of international policy or Imperial policy, but I
suggest to the hon. Member that he would have great difficulty if he had to administer this scheme for one group of people in Belgium, another group in France, a third group in the Dominions, and so on.

Mr. SPENCER: Why could not the person in a foreign country satisfy the British Consul that he was the person entitled to the money?

Sir K. WOOD: He might satisfy the British Consul, but take the case of a person in receipt of a pension who went to some remote part of Canada. To what officer could you possibly delegate the duty of saying that the conditions of this Bill were complied with?

Mr. SPENCER: What about old age pensions?

Sir K. WOOD: The conditions which apply so far as old age pensions are concerned are exactly the same conditions as those contained here.

Mr. LAWSON: How is it done by the Ministry of Pensions?

Sir K. WOOD: I must answer one question at a time. So far as I am concerned, I do not see at present how it is possible to devise a system by which we could see that the obligations and conditions of the scheme were carried out in all the different parts of the world. It is impossible. Another question was put to me about commutation and surrender value. If you are to have commutation and surrender value, you must have them at the expense of the fund— the other contributors to the scheme have to pay for that. We must have regard to the interests of the whole fund, and if people do go abroad and make up their minds to do so, knowing that this is a condition of the scheme, they must abide by their own decision. I am looking forward to a time when, particularly in our own Dominions, similar schemes will be possible, and we are taking power to make reciprocal arrangements with any Dominion which institutes a scheme such as this, so if there is a scheme let us say in Canada, giving the same or better benefits we shall be able under this Measure to transfer—

Mr. PALING: Would that apply to a non-contributory scheme in that country?

Sir K. WOOD: I say that we have made a provision by which we can make the necessary transfer as between our own scheme and schemes working in conjunction with our own. I think that is the true solution of a difficulty of this kind. I appreciate the points which have been put, but I venture to say that, after hearing a long discussion, I hope the great majority will agree that the administrative difficulties are too great, and that we must look forward to solving this matter at a time when other countries and Dominions make similar schemes in order that we may make reciprocal arrangements.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Can the hon. Member point to a single difficulty that would be experienced in satisfying himself that an old age pensioner, who emigrated, was still alive and, therefore, entitled to receive his pension?

Mr. WESTWOOD: With regard to the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary. I am reminded of a discussion in this House two years ago in connection with a scheme which had been formulated and really engineered by the party opposite. That was a scheme for the emigration from this country of young persons under 17 years of age. We protested against that, and every Member opposite guaranteed to this House that there would be a follow-up scheme and that, although these young persons under 17 were emigrated to Australia and were 400 miles from a railway station or from any small township, they would be able to trace these children, keep an eye on them, and see that they were guaranteed fair treatment. Why have they changed when it comes to a question of paying pensions to children who may emigrate? The Parliamentary Secretary has not replied to the point raised by my hon. Friend in connection with the emigration of children from Dr. Barnardo's Homes. It is true that these children have been provided for in the past, but they have been provided for by the generosity of people—

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): The hon. Member must keep to the Amendment.

Mr. WESTWOOD: When these children are emigrated abroad, it is stated that they are to be deprived of the pensions for which their parents have paid, and I
was trying to prove that it is not impossible to follow up these children or to pay the pensions to those children who are entitled to receive them. I may point out that the objection to this proposal is going to out away some of these schemes in connection with emigration. The Salvation Army emigrate whole families. They have schemes whereby they have arranged at the present time for the emigration of widows with families, and there are many families in which there are four children over 14 years of age, who are able to go and take their place in the Colonies, with a mother to care for them going along with them, but there are children under 14 years of age. If a family has emigrated by the assistance of the Salvation Army, they are going to lose the pension for the children, and the widow will lose the pension also. I do not think we can be taunted—at least, I am not going to accept a taunt that I am not as good a believer in Empire as any Member opposite. From the moment I entered this House, I have been a member of the Labour group that is interested in Empire development, and I am going to make the claim that you are going to stand in the way of helping those who would get work for children emigrating abroad if you do not accept the Amendment. I trust that some action may be taken by the Government, if they will not accept the Amendment, to get some alteration which will give some benefit to those who emigrate abroad, and—I will be frank—that they will not steal from them the benefits for which their parents paid when they happened to be alive.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: So far as I understand it, the Ministry have no desire to get out of their obligations to pay this money. It is simply a question of difficulty of administration. The people in this country have to prove to the satisfaction of the Ministry that they are entitled to this fund. Would it not be possible to ask the people who go abroad to still provide that proof, and to throw the onus upon them? If they could prove to the Ministry their entitlement, I think they ought to get the money. It is not that the Government wishes to deny it, but by throwing the onus of proof on the people themselves, it would relieve the Ministry of all trouble and give the people, I should think, a very great deal of trouble.

Mr. RYE: I entirely agree with the last speaker. It seems to me that if anyone has contributed to a scheme, and takes the trouble to keep in touch with the authorities, that person is entitled to a pension under this Bill. Assuming that he cannot keep in touch, I admit there is that difficulty; but seeing that this is a contributory scheme, I do not understand why the Government could not agree to earmark the pension until such time as the person entitled to it is able to come forward and prove his or her claim. It seems to me, if I may say so with great respect to the Government, that it is a monstrous suggestion to make that anyone who has paid into the scheme should not be entitled to receive the benefits under the scheme, merely on the ground that he or she has left the kingdom. It seems to me wholly inequitable and wrong, and I must say, reading this Clause, that I am not at all in agreement with it. It may be that the side-note, "Residential qualification," makes the position clearer, but if you do not rely on that side-note, I am by no means certain that the Clause as drawn bears the interpretation placed upon it by the right hon. Gentleman, who, I am sorry to see, is not in his place at the moment to hear what I have to say on this subject. This is a contributory scheme, and it is, to my mind, monstrously unfair to suggest that anybody who leaves the kingdom, and who is ready and willing to keep in touch with the authorities, should be prevented from drawing his or her pension. As far as I am concerned, I am not in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman on this Clause.

Mr. PALING: The Under-Secretary mentioned in his reply that the only method and the only hope of getting some payment for these people, who, for one reason or another, may be compelled to emigrate to the Colonies—and I do not know whether he included foreign countries also—was that the Colonies should have some equivalent scheme in operation. I made an interjection, and asked if that would apply to the Colonies who either now have or in the future may originate a non-contributory scheme.

Sir K. WOOD: Quite possibly.

Mr. PALING: Would it apply to such a country as the United States, where, I believe, mothers' pensions of some description are already initiated? Would
it not be possible to have a scheme of agreements between a country like that and ourselves, even though their scheme is non-contributory? I think it might be worked out on that basis, and if there is anything behind what the Undersecretary says, in view of the fact that the United States in any event have a mothers' pension scheme, this benefit might be arranged with them to be paid to our people who emigrate there, and to any other countries which have a similar scheme, whether contributory or non-contributory. The Under-Secretary made a, lot of fuss about the question of administrative difficulties. Would it not be possible to put the onus on anybody who goes out to our Colonies, or even to foreign countries, of proving that they are obeying and abiding by the conditions laid down in this Bill? If they do not provide the proof, it may be possible that the Government may have some reasonable grounds for refusing to pay the pension. But surely if they can provide proof they ought to have the pension. There will be those to whom they can testify, such as magistrates or other officials in the Colonies, men that can be trusted, and in constant touch with various authorities. The thing can be done from that point of view; but that the Parliamentary Secretary should think of administrative difficulties standing in the way is not quite good enough. These people have paid for their pensions and they ought to have them.
The basis of the arguments of hon. Members opposite has been that by virtue of the fact that this is a contributory scheme these people have a right to their pension. There is no question of charity, no question of destroying their morale by giving them a gift from the State. The thing is one they have paid for, say they, and they have a right to it. But the moment the question of difficulty comes up in another country and that the people concerned shall have their rights, the difficulties are so great that it cannot be done! After all, hon. Members, including hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite, say that our Civil Service and our different Departments of State are wonderfully effective, and the idea is that they can get over any number of difficulties— almost insuperable difficulties. Surely if that is so, the difficulties presented by
this Clause are not so insuperable but what they can be surmounted very easily if the will to surmount them is behind it all. I think the will is not behind the Government. I was going to say that the "excuse" that has been made—perhaps that is not quite the right word: let me say the "reason" given by the Parliamentary Secretary for not accepting the Amendment to this Clause is too thin for any intelligent Member of this House to accept. There is no will behind it. Probably they think that if these people do not get their pensions it will enable the Bill to be on a better financial footing than otherwise would be the case, and at the expense of the poor unfortunate people who have paid for the pension, and are denied it. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will find it is not well to let drop the wishes of the House— not of one party—because since this Clause has been discussed nearly everybody who has taken part in it has expressed the same feeling as on the Liberal and Labour Benches. In view of that fact, I think they would be wise, even at this late hour, to promise to do something to meet the arguments that have been put forward.

Sir ALFRED BUTT: I am extremely sorry that earlier in this Debate hon. Members above the Gangway accused the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary of treating this matter in a way it should not be treated. I think it will be agreed that hitherto we have had nothing but great consideration and patience from the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. That, however, is a reason why I hope the Parliamentary Secretary, who is now on the Front Bench, will himself appreciate that there is in the speaking on all sides of the House the feeling that what is admittedly unjust and immoral cannot be justified merely because of administrative difficulties. Those who have spoken have emphasised the fact that administrative difficulties can be overcome if the onus of proof is put upon the claimant to prove the justice of his claim. That might apply with great force to those who reside in the Colonies. I am one of those—and I do not think I stand alone in this House—who think that part of our difficulties in regard to unemployment can be overcome by encouraging emigration. I think it is deplorable that we
should be discussing a Bill where we seem to be putting up difficulties in regard to the emigrants from this country. I should like to remind the Parliamentary Secretary that the Minister has admitted the principle that a claimant may be away for three months and still come back and draw his pension in full. I suggest that, having regard to the discussions which have taken place in this House, there should certainly be a method, so far as the Dominions are concerned, that while putting the onus of proof upon the claimant, facilities should be given by this Bill and by the Government to enable any claimant to get what is due to him.

Mr. HARDIE: The House has many times heard speeches on the other side of the House about the great necessity of linking up and cementing the Empire. I have been sitting here wondering why all that view has been lost sight of in the discussion now before the House. If there is any way of loosening the cement that joins the Empire it is by making those who go to other parts feel a hatred towards this country for robbing them. It is not a question of their doing what they like in the matter. It is a question of being compelled to pay, and then: "if you dare to emigrate"—which they are always being asked to do—your country forgets that you have paid. That is the shoddy finance upon which this Bill is based: the robbery of the orphan of his 7s. 6d. a week and of anybody else in order to keep up the shoddy finance of this Bill. Now I want to speak in regard to what was said previously. Speaking in the Debate on Tuesday, 14th July, the Parliamentary Secretary asked himself a question Which I am now putting to him. He said:
I am impressed with two matters which I shall mention, and I think we shall have to see what can be done. I am impressed with the case, say, of a soldier maintaining his wife abroad as in some cases happens, and we will say he dies. What is the position of his widow?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1925; col. 1201, Vol. 186.]
Further on the hon. Gentleman said:
There is a Clause 34, which does give power to the Minister to remove difficulties in such cases as I hope this may be."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1925: col. 1201, Vol. 186.]
This we are now discussing as being insuperable! The hon. Gentleman
said then that this Clause 34 gave power to remove these difficulties. If that Clause does give power, why is it being stated now that the difficulties are insuperable? The logic of the whole position comes to this: These Clauses in the Bill have been badly drafted, or those drafting them have been compelled, for financial reasons, to change their mind. However honestly they may have started out to do the work, they have got this alternative of robbing these people. That seems to be the logic, so far as the change is concerned. It may be that the Parliamentary Secretary has got some way out of this. I should like to see him perform on the subject, in order to get this matter squared up, as between the two parties I have mentioned.
Where is the justification for any hon. or right hon. Gentleman one day talking about the greatness of Empire, and yet, when it comes to a few shillings, to say, in effect, to the people abroad, that however they may feel towards us, we do not care for them, and do not mind doing something to keep up this shoddy finance of the Bill. We have had before the House the question of the emigration of children. What was the position of hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite? I will not waste the time of the House reiterating or reminding them. I think they have sufficient memory to remind themselves of the fact. Let them try to explain their attitude away, how they are now standing and looking the other way! If you want to get sound finance, if you want to be able to go to the country, and say that you at least expressed your moral sense of responsibility to the wife of the service man who dies, the orphan who is going abroad; if you want to say you used your moral sense at all, then you are bound to change those things. What an awful and inglorious position it is for men claiming to be such highly-skilled business men to say that we cannot make a little arrangement; that when somone goes abroad, we cannot keep in touch. Why? Cook's tours would give you a piece to attach to your passport that would carry you to the end of your life. You are making us in opposition feel ashamed of you for the absolute lack of business capacity, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will
take the twist out of his statements. I would like to see him walking the straight line.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I feel it very difficult to accept this Clause, and it makes it no easier for us on this side of the House to listen to the language of those speaking in favour of the Amendment, and to hear such words as "robbery."

Mr. HARDIE: Well, what is it? Give it another name.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: It is not going to help to carry the Amendment.

Mr. HARDIE: Call things by their right names.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: My objection to this Clause is the same objection I have raised on two other Clauses, and it is that this is not a. non-contributory Bill. It is a contributory Bill, and those who have paid money have a perfect right to receive that money when they become entitled to it. If any of us are insured in commercial companies, because we went abroad, or anything happened, that company would not be able to come to us and say, "Because you have gone abroad, we cannot trace you, and we refuse to pay."

Sir K. WOOD: It depends on the condition of the policy.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: The Parliamentary Secretary tells me it depends on the conditions of the policy-Let me say that I should not be so foolish as to accept a policy that contained such restrictions.

Sir K. WOOD: Most of the conditions of the policies of companies in this country are that people may not go abroad.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I might reply to my hon. Friend. [An HON. MEMBER: "What did he say?"] I know what he said, and if hon. Members opposite will allow me, I will reply. If you insure yourself for life, it is for the British Isles. If you want to go, say, to the East, you pay a higher premium. I do not think that is pari passu with the case here. I quite admit that the administration of tracing all these people and paying pensions to them would be
not only extremely difficult but, I must confess, I do not see how it is possible. What I do think is that there would be no difficulty in providing that when anyone went abroad their pensions should be commuted. Ex-service men get their pensions commuted if they are going abroad and want to use the money to set up in business abroad, and I do not see any reason why pensioners in this country should not have their pensions commuted. I may add that it is quite impossible to give a widow a pension of 20s. up to the age of 70, and then to withdraw from her 10s. per week. The logical and inevitable result of increasing the widows' pensions would be that we would also have to increase the old age pensions. Therefore, you would add to the millions I have mentioned, double the whole cost of existing pensions. I trust the Minister will do something between now and when the Bill reaches another place, or when it is in another place, to delete this provision, or vary it in some way, so that a man or woman who has paid contributions to this scheme gets money value.

Mr. SKELTON: I am sure the House has had the greatest sympathy with the Minister when actuarial difficulties have prevented the adoption of Amendments to this Bill. Where actuarial difficulties exist, even the best Amendments must sometimes give way. But it is a totally different business when the difficulty is only administrative. I feel the House has very little sympathy with the argument put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary. Administrative difficulties exist only to be got over, and I think this Clause as it stands represents the Departmental mind and not the Cabinet mind. I would like to see the Parliamentary Secretary apply his well-known resourcefulness and mental agility to getting rid of the provision that when a man or woman has passed the contributory stage and leaves Great Britain to go to the Dominions he or she will not lose the benefits under this Bill. The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) touched upon the contrast that this Clause makes with the arguments in favour of migration. I entirely agree with him. I think it is absurd that we should urge the country to treat the Dominions and the Mother Country as one, and then, when we are confronted by a simple
administrative difficulty of finding out whether Mrs. "X" is still a widow or Mr. "Y" is still alive that we should be told that the administrative difficulty is so great that the pension cannot be paid. It is a complete contrast with all those views about the Empire which are expressed, and properly and sincerely expressed, by our party, and I urge the Parliamentary Secretary, even at this time, to reconsider this Clause.
I cannot believe the administrative difficulties are very great. For example, a war pensioner going to India continues to get his pension. I understand, because I was dealing recently with a case of this kind, that it is up to him to communicate with the pension authorities at home, and that if he fails to do so over a certain period his pension drops. Surely some provision analogous to that, though perhaps slightly less rigid, could be adopted When a man or woman goes to the British Dominions, where the central and local administrations are very much the same as our own, it is absurd to say that the administrative difficulties are so great that pensions for which contributions have been paid must come to an end. I agree that if it were a case of continuing the contributions the question would be very different, and I would not press my hon. Friend on that point; but here, ex hypothesi, the contributory period is over and all that remains is for them to receive the fruit of their contributions. It seems to be so foolish, so shortsighted, so typical of the Departmental mind to say that the pension cannot be received because there may be some little trouble over the identification of those who have gone to those parts of the world where so many of our fellow countrymen have settled.

Mr. KELLY: I wonder why we do not oftener hear speeches like those to which we have been listening from the Government side. I am somewhat surprised at the line taken by the Parliamentary Secretary, as the Government have already got over the difficulty in the case of men who are receiving pensions from the various Departments. I know hon. Members of this House who have been in receipt of pensions from the Government, and I have read of their being out of the country for a considerable period for reasons of health, but I have never
heard that their pensions were stopped during the time they were away. If pensions can be paid in the case of Civil Service pensioners, or of Army or Navy pensioners, why cannot we get over the administrative difficulties in the case of these people who have been paying week by week for their pensions? I recall the case of men who are sent to Malta. The Admiralty requires a number of its men, middle-aged men, to go out to Malta for periods of two or three years, and they go also to Gibraltar and to Hong Kong. If it happens that only one of their parents is alive, they like to take that parent with them, because the family may never have been separated. Under this Bill, if those people in the Admiralty service care to take out their old parents the pension they are in receipt of will be stopped. Reference has been made by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) to Cook's tourists. Hon. Members on the other side sometimes remind us of the trade unions. Trade unions have branches in various parts of the world. I deal with branches in Gibraltar, Malta, Simon's Town, Hong Kong and Bermuda. If the trade unions can get over the difficulty of distributing their benefits there, surely the Ministry of Health is not going to put itself in a secondary position to the trade unions? I trust, after the appeal that has been made to the Parliamentary Secretary by his own party, and after he has heard how the pensioners from other Departments can be paid, no matter what part of the world they are in, that he will grant this concession to people who are recipients of pensions under this Bill.

Major GLYN: I do hope the Parliamentary Secretary will consider the representations that have been made to him. It seems to me to be a comparatively simple matter. As a great many Members have said, under a contributory scheme there are rights attaching to the benefits, and I think none of us can deny it. There may be overwhelming difficulties in supervising the administration of the scheme overseas, but I do not see any difficulty in a man of 60 or 55 who has gone overseas to settle with the younger members of his family being allowed to commute his pension. That would be some concession, at any rate.

Sir K. WOOD: The other contributors to the scheme have to be. considered. Any surrender value or any commutation has to come out of the funds of the scheme.

Major GLYN: I quite agree, but, after all, the individual member has subscribed, and he is making a sacrifice. It may not be actuarially sound, or anything else, but if we are going to make this scheme a real thing, and prevent its retarding migration, this small concession as to commuting a pension at the time of departure overseas ought to be considered most carefully.

Mr. CLYNES: I rise to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether, after having listened to the Debate during the last hour or so, he does not recognise that the House is quite unanimous in its appeal to him to modify his attitude on the Amendment? Every speaker, from whatever part of the House he has risen, has spoken in support of this Amendment or the alternative of commutation. It clearly has suggested itself to the House as a reasonable and equitable provision to have in a Bill of this kind. It may be that the Parliamentary Secretary feels some difficulty in receding from the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, and by himself, in the earlier stages of the Debate, but he must now feel that he would be doing a real injustice to those who are entitled to the rights and to the benefits under this Bill if he deprived them of those benefits merely because they went to reside in some other part of the Empire. I suggest that it would be advisable to have the Debate carried on for just a short time longer in order that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill could be informed of the unanimous feeling of the House, and in the hope that a somewhat more reassuring statement will be made to us.

Mr. DIXEY: I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary how many people are likely to be affected by this proviso, and, further, whether the Dominion Governments could not be consulted to see if administrative difficulties could not be overcome? I feel very strongly on the subject of Empire migration, and I think that the party of the Parliamentary Secretary would do everything in their power to encourage every right-minded
type of person to migrate, even at the cost of any small loss which might accrue from this concession. I think we should have some information showing whether these difficulties could not be overcome.

Mr. VIANT: I would press the Parliamentary Secretary to give this matter due consideration. Great injustice is going to be done if this Clause is allowed to remain, and I feel prompted to ask what saving is likely to be effected by retaining it. I feel that this provision is an oversight, that due consideration was not given to the effect of it upon the increasing number of old folk who are going to the Dominions year after year. The easy means of travel and the short time occupied in getting to the Dominions are an additional inducement to them to go with their sons and daughters who may have settled there. The House ought to give due consideration to that fact, and the Ministry of Health ought to be prepared to accept what I feel to be the undoubted desire of the House.

Mr. MELLER: The question which is exercising the minds of hon. Members of this House is one which has given them very deep thought during the progress of this Bill. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that there are administrative difficulties in paying these pensions week by week or month by month, and I see the possibility of people wandering about for a considerable period and coming back when they have got six months or 12 months in arrears. On the other hand, it must be remembered that there are periodical payments due to people travelling in distant parts of the world, and those difficulties are got over sometimes by private institutions. I think the Minister could get over the difficulties, not by having to pay these pensions week by week or every quarter, but he might adopt the suggestion that there should be commutation of the pensions which have become due. The Parliamentary Secretary has suggested that the surrender value would have to be paid by the other contributors to the scheme, but is that so? Surely the actuary has reserved a lump sum to provide for the time when these pensions become due. A lump sum is required to purchase annuities for people at the age of 50, 60 or 65 for a number of years, and other sums are required for children. When these things have been valued under this scheme, at the end of
five or ten years the Government must ask whether they have sufficient in hand, and whether they will have, sufficient to purchase these annuities as they fall due.
Under the war pensions scheme commutation has not been found difficult to carry out, and it meets very much the same class of difficulties which arise in this case. Members of pensions committees know that we constantly receive application from men who desire to settle in Canada or Australia, and they require a sum of money to pay their passages and to leave their families on a satisfactory footing until they start work abroad. Even that difficulty has been got over, and I suggest to the Minister that the administrative difficulties of paying these pensions at different periods can be got over by commutation for a cash surrender value. It is evident that the actuary has provided the finance of this Bill on the basis that all persons in this country who qualify are going to receive their pension, and it will be in the nature of a windfall if a number of persons are persuaded to leave this country and settle in our Dominions. Let us hope that the condition of trade here will be so good that we shall not need our people to emigrate, and for these reasons I ask the Minister to reconsider this question.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I desire to appeal to the Minister to reconsider his position in regard to this Amendment. During his absence from 15 to 20 speakers, on all sides of the House, have been appealing in the same way, asking that this Amendment should be adopted. I will put one or two considerations before the Minister. I feel sure the argument he will use on this occasion will be exactly the one he used when this Bill was before the House in Committee when we discussed this Clause, and it was that, because this scheme was associated with the National Health Insurance, it would be impossible to administer this Amendment. I want to put one point, which I hope the Minister of Health will note. This Bill differs in the provision of pensions from the benefits that are provided under the National Health Insurance Act; and I cannot see that the comparison carries any weight, because whether a man receives benefit or not, he is insured. He may receive medical benefit when he dons not receive
cash benefits. The people under this Bill have no chance, of insurance of that kind, most of them will have to wait until they reach the age of 66, and they will have contributed to a fund which ought to help them when they reach that age.
Take the case of the person who pays into the fund from the age of 16 to 65, and he desires to emigrate to one of the Dominions. I do not know of any argument against that person being able to have a commutation of the amount due to him. I do not think it would be very expensive. I would like to ask if anyone can say how many persons would fall into the category of which I have been speaking. In view of the unanimity which has been shown on this point I urge the right hon. Gentleman to do something in this direction, and accept this Amendment. I would like to remind him that we have now dropped the contention that the pension should be paid to persons wherever they go in any part of the world. The Amendment is now confined to the British Empire. When we appeal to a Conservative Government on that ground I think they ought to take serious notice of our arguments.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: If this is a question of commutation it is a much larger one than this particular Act, because it would affect immediately the two great Services. In the Army no man is allowed to commute at less than 2s. or 3s per day. The Navy is almost in the same position, and no naval man can commute at less than 14s. If the Navy and the Army men, whose pensions are thoroughly well earned, are not allowed to do this why should the old age pensioner be allowed to commute his pension which is 10s. This is a question which opens a very wide door. It is not simply commuting the old age pension, but if you commute a 10s. pension you would have to allow both Services to commute at 10s. as well. It has been found that it is a very great mistake to allow the service men to commute pensions below 2s. per day.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: -In the absence of the Minister of Health, this House seems to have come to a unanimous decision on this point on every side, because the same
view has been expressed by hon. Members above the Gangway, on the Liberal benches, and amongst the friends and followers of the Government. No less than 10 Conservative Members have spoken in favour of the Amendment and against the exclusion of these pensioners who have gone abroad from the benefits of this scheme. The main ground on which the claim has been based is that this is not a. non-contributory scheme in regard to which we could have laid down regulations of this kind, but it is a contributory scheme, and to withhold what is due to these pensions because they have gone to a different part of the British Empire is quite wrong. That is a feeling which is not restricted to one quarter of the House. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, if he had been here would have seen that Members were conducting this discussion, not with the object of wasting time or of scoring points, but to present strongly the claims of those who find it necessary to go to some other part of the Empire. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, in the course of an interruption, suggested that in the insurance institutions of this country, when a man goes abroad his policy becomes null and void. I have as large an experience of life insurance at the present moment as anyone in this House. I am interested in one of the largest of the offices. I can only say that the hon. Gentleman's statement is news to me.

Sir K. WOOD: Other conditions had to prevail. I am fully aware of the extensive duties which the right hon. Gentleman performs, and I can tell the House that in connection with his own office other conditions have to prevail in the case of people who go abroad.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The office with which I am connected pays very large sums away every year in the way of annuities of the nature of pensions for which contributors have paid contributions. I do not know of a single instance of an office where the annuity is cancelled merely because the man or woman has gone from this country to some other part of the British Empire. We know from what has been said to-night that there can be no ground for withholding this benefit from contributors for actuarial reasons. I am sure that the Minister cannot claim that
this is necessary in order that the rest of the scheme may be solvent. If that were so, it would be a very severe condemnation of the scheme. The only argument put forward by Ministers in opposition to this proposal, is that it is administratively impossible. While the right hon. Gentleman was away from the House a speech was made by an hon. Member who administers the funds of a large trade union, with beneficiaries all over the world. He is able to let them have their benefits; he is able, through his organisation, to distribute the benefits, and I venture to say that no mistakes are made by his union in doing it and that they have not made their scheme insolvent. What is possible for a trade union ought surely to be possible for a great Government Department.
The other point that has been pressed, very naturally, is that if this course is persisted in by the Government, they will be striking a serious blow at the cause of emigration. Empire settlement is of the greatest moment to us, not only on sentimental but on economic grounds. Every inducement that we can offer to those who go abroad to feel that they are carrying with them the full rights of citizenship of the Empire, should be encouraged. I recognise the difficulty in which the Minister is placed owing to the Rules of the House. He cannot speak again without leave. Even if he agree with the views expressed without a single exception in every quarter of the House, I am afraid that he cannot, owing to the procedure, make an alteration of this kind in another place without infringing the privileges of this House. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will ask for the leave of the House now, in order that he may speak again and assure us that he is prepared to fall in with a universal wish.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I can, of course, speak only with the leave of the House, but in the circumstances, seeing that when I spoke before the House was very much emptier than it is now, I hope I may be allowed to repeat some of the things which I said then. If will be recognised that I have every possible inducement to sympathise with the purpose of this Amendment, and to accept it if I can. I do not like to have hon. Members suggest that we are taking away
something for which contributors have paid and for which they ought to receive the benefits to which they have been led to expect that they were entitled. Still less do I like to have it suggested that we are doing anything which would hinder the free passage between this country and the Dominions of those who may desire to find better scope for their activities abroad. Therefore, I have every inducement to say, "Yes, I accept this Amendment." But I cannot do so, because I cannot find how it is possible administratively to work a provision of that kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ask the trade unions."] Someone says the trade unions are working on these lines. I do not know what the conditions are in those cases, or what are the circumstances. Someone else said that it was possible to pay pensions to civil servants and their dependants when they settled abroad. I pointed out that in that case the pensions were fixed and the abode of the pensioner was known. Obviously, there was no difficulty in cases of that kind.
In this case we are not dealing with fixed' pensions, but with pensions which vary according to the circumstances. Take the case of a widow, which I mentioned before. The pension ceases if she re-marries. The allowances to her children vary according to the age of the children, and they cease at a certain age. All these points require "touch" between the administrative machine and. the individual concerned. It is points like that which make it absolutely impossible to undertake the responsibility for the payment of benefits under the conditions of the Bill to people who may be in quite remote parts of the world, separated by long distances from civilisation, out of reach and out of touch. An hon. Member suggested that if that were so, we might substitute for the proposal of the Amendment a surrender value. I wonder whether hon. Members have thought out what that means. Take the case of a widow in receipt of a pension, of 10s. which is to cease when she remarries. What are you to do with her when she goes abroad? Are you to give her the surrender value? Suppose that she comes back here and re-marries. She then has both the surrender value and the marriage.
Hon. Members must see that there are; very serious difficulties in giving a
surrender value in such cases, even apart from financial considerations. I say, further, that if you were to begin giving surrender values to people who went abroad, I do not see how you could stop at the British Empire; you would ho obliged to give it to those who went abroad to other parts of the world You would then find that you would get a good many other classes of cases to which you would be asked to give the surrender value. That would wreck she scheme. We have no fund with which to pay surrender values, and payments would be made at the expense of the other contributors or of the solvency of the scheme. I am making this statement, not out of a desire to score in debate, but because there are practical difficulties in the way of the proposal, and I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. LUNN: I am not a little astonished at the Minister's argument with regard to the difficulties of administering this scheme for anyone who goes to any part of the British Empire. I think his argument is very thin indeed. We have bridged the gulf very much indeed between the Dominions and the Mother Country in recent years. As I happen to be a member of the Overseas Committee, I am astonished at what he says in regard to dealing with people of this kind. I do not think there is any difficulty of any kind in providing that his Department could be in touch with anyone who leaves this country and goes to any part of the British Empire. Knowing there are thousands of people who want to go to the British Empire, he is, as a Tory Minister, taking a step to stop these people, and I think he, in their interests, should take steps to remove this difficulty and not put another block in their way.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH COOKE: As I have not been here during the whole of the Debate, I cannot follow all the arguments that have been used. As far as I can remember with regard to the pre-War pensioners, this difficulty was overcome. It was found possible to give pre-War pensioners their pensions if they left this country. I venture to think it would be at least worth while trying to see if it be possible to overcome this administrative difficulty and see whether,
for these widows who migrate to parts of the British Empire, it will not be possible to overcome these difficulties that stand in the way.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: When the right hon. Gentleman told the House that his only objection to responding to the general call that has been made to him is the question of administrative difficulties, various interjections were made. He ignored them all. I should like to ask him if he will tell us what administrative difficulties stand in the way of permitting an old-age pensioner who migrates to any part of the Dominions to receive his old age pension in case he joins one of his children who have gone out under one of the migration schemes. It seems to me that payment, instead of being paid weekly, could be paid monthly or quarterly as the case may be. Through your own councils you could devise ways and means and suitable means of payment for old-age pensioners who have gone over to live with members of their family.
Regarding the children, one can readily see that difficulties will arise here and there, but will the right boa. Gentleman deny that the Secretary of State for the Colonies is persistent in telling the House that in the case of children who go over under various emigration schemes, constant attention is paid to them by some organisation set up by this country and the Dominion to which they emigrate. If they can be visited for purposes of seeing that the conditions under which they work are reasonable, then obviously some machinery can be used for paying the pension when they go abroad. With regard to the widow, she may be a very elusive creature, and there may be difficulties. I hope we shall see something very different from the exhibition we saw-on Wednesday night, when those Members of the Government who spoke in favour of an Amendment voted against it. I hope they will express their real feelings in support of the Amendment inside the Lobby, unless the right hon. Gentleman responds much nearer to the Amendment than he has done.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 135: Noes, 253.

Division No. 307.]
AYES.
[8.2 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bromley, J.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff. Cannock)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Buchanan, G.
Day, Colonel Harry


Ammon, Charles George
Cape, Thomas
Dennison, R.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Charleton, H. C.
Duncan, C.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Clowes, S.
Dunnlco, H.


Baker, Walter
Cluse, W. S.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)


Barnes, A.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
England, Colonel A.


Barr, J.
Compton, Joseph
Fenby, T. D.


Batey, Joseph
Connolly, M.
Forrest, W.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Crawfurd, H. E.
Gibbins, Joseph


Broad, F. A.
Dalton, Hugh
Gillett, George M.


Bromfield, William
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Greenall, T.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Grenfell, D. H. (Glamorgan)
MacLaren, Andrew
Stamford, T. W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
March, S.
Stephen, Campbell


Groves, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sutton, J. E.


Grundy, T. W.
Murnin, H.
Taylor, B. A.


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Oliver, George Harold
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Paling, W.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Thurtle, E.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hardie, George D.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Harney, E. A.
Potts, John S.
Varley, Frank B.


Hayday, Arthur
Purcell, A. A.
Viant, S. P.


Hayes, John Henry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A, (Burnley)
Riley, Ben
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ritson, J.
Warne, G. H.


Hirst, G. H.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Watts-Morgan, Lt-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Scrymgeour, E.
Westwood, J.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Whiteley, W.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wiggins, William Martin


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Kelly, W. T.
Sitch, Charles H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Kennedy, T.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lansoury, George
Smillie, Robert
Windsor, Walter


Lawson, John James
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wright, W.


Lee, F.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Lindley, F.W.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)



Livingstone, A. M.
Snell, Harry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lunn, William
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Mr. Percy Harris and Major Hore-




Belisha.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cope, Major William
Haslam, Henry C.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Couper, J. B.
Hawke, John Anthony


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Crook, C. W.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Astor, Viscountess
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Hilton, Cecil


Atholl, Duchess of
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)


Balniel, Lord
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Holt, Captain H. P.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Homan, C. W. J.


Barnen, Major Sir Richard
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Beamish. Captain T. P. H.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Drewe, C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hudson, H. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)


Bethell, A.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Betterton, Henry B.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hurst Gerald B.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & p'bl's)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fermoy, Lord
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Bowyer Capt G. E. W.
Fielden, E. B.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Brass, Captain W.
Finburgh, S.
Jacob, A. E.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Fleming, D. P.
Jephcott, A. R.


Briggs, J. Harold
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Briscoe, Richard George
Fraser, Captain Ian
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Ganzoni, Sir John
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gates, Percy
Knox, Sir Alfred


Brown, Maj. D.C.(N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Lamb, J. O.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.


Bullock, Captain M.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Burman, J. B.
Goff, Sir Park



Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Grace, John
Loder, J. de V.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Looker, Herbert William


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
MacAndrew Charles Glen


Campbell, E. T.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Cassels, J. D.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Macintyre, Ian


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
McLean, Major A.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Macmillan, Captain H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hammersley, S. S.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Christie, J. A.
Hanbury, C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Clayton, G. C.
Harland, A.
Margesson, Captain D.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Meller, R. J.




Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Radford, E. A.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Raine, W.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Ramsden, E.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Morden, Col. W. Grant
Rice, Sir Frederick
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Ropner, Major L.
Waddington, R.


Murchison, C. K.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Nelson, Sir Frank
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Warrender. Sir Victor


Neville, R. J.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wells, S. R.


Nuttall, Ellis
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Oakley, T.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts., Westb'y)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Williams. Herbert G. (Reading)


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Shepperson, E. W.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Pennefather, Sir John
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Smithers, Waldron
Wise, Sir Fredric


Perring, William George
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wolmer, Viscount


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Womersley, W. J.


Pielou, D. P.
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Plicher, G.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Storry Deans, R.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Preston, William
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.



Price, Major C. W. M.
Strickland, Sir Gerald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Major Hennessy and Lord Stanley.

Division No. 308.]
AYES.
10.12 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Ammon, Charles George
Harney, E. A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Attlee, Clement Richard
Harris, Percy A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scrymgeour, E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barnes, A.
Hayes, John Henry
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barr, J.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, G. H.
Smillie, Robert


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Broad, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Bromfield, William
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromley, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snell, Harry


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stamford, T. W.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Charieton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Clowes, S.
Kennedy, T.
Taylor, R. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, George
Thurtle, E.


Connolly, M.
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lee, F.
Varley, Frank B.


Dalton, Hugh
Lindley, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lowth, T.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Day, Colonel Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Warne, G. H.


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duncan, C.
Montague, Frederick
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Fenby, T. D.
Murnin, H.
Westwood, J.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, W.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Oliver, George Harold
Wiggins, William Martin


Gibbins, Joseph
Paling, W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gillett, George M.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenall, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Purcell, A. A.
Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)


Groves, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Riley, Ben



Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Sir Godfrey Collins and Mr.




Trevelyan Thomson.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Bullock, Captain M.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Burman, J. B.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. H.


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Drewe, C.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Edmondson. Major A. J.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Campbell, E. T.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Elveden, Viscount


Balniel, Lord
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
England, Colonel A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Christie, J. A.
Fairfax, Capain J. G.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Clarry, Reginald George
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Clayton, G. C.
Falls, Sir Charles F.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fielden, E. B.


Bethell, A.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Finburgh, S.


Betterton, Henry B.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Forrest, W.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cooper, A. Duff
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cope, Major William
Fraser, Captain Ian


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Couper, J. B.
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Blundell, F. N.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Crook, C. W.
Gates, Percy


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Crooke, J. Smadley (Deritend)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Brass, Captain W.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Goff, Sir Park


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Gower, Sir Robert


Briggs, J. Harold
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Grace, John


Briscoe, Richard George
Dalkeith, Earl of
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Greenwood, William (Stockport)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Grotton, Colonel John




Grotrian, H. Brent
Loder, J. de V.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Looker, Herbert William
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mac Andrew, Charles Glen
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Hammersley, S. S.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Shaw, Capt. W. W, (Wilts., Westb'y)


Hanbury, C.
Macintyre, Ian
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
McLean Major A.
Shepperson, E. w.


Harland, A.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Harrison, G. J. C.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Haslam, Henry C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Hawke, John Anthony
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf"d, Henley)
Meller, R. J.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Storry Deans, R.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hilton, Cecil
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Tinne, J. A.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Murchison, C. K.
Tryon. Rt. Hon. George Clement


Homan, C. W. J.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Waddington, R.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Neville, R. J.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Newman, Sir R. H, S. D. L. (Exeter)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'd.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Nuttall, Ellis
Wells, S. R.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Oakley, T.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Hume, Sir G. H.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Pennefather, Sir John
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Kurd, Percy A.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Hurst, Gerald B.
Perring, William George
Wilson, M. J. (York, N, R., Richm'd)


Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Pielou, D. P.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wolmer, Viscount


Jacob, A. E.
Preston, William
Womersley, W. J.


Jephcott, A. R.
Radford, E. A.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Raine, W.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Ramsden, E.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Rentoul, G. S.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Lamb, J. Q.
Rice, Sir Frederick



Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Captain Douglas Hacking and


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Ropner, Major L.
Captain Margesson.


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Mr. HARRIS: I beg to move, on page 22, line 21, to leave out the word "three," and to insert instead thereof the word "six."
It is still a fact that there are people who have responsibilities in almost every part of the civilised world. We are still an island people and our adventurous nature takes us to all parts, not only of the Empire but of the world. It may be that a man dies in China or some distant land and his widow, owing to financial difficulties, goes to reside in another country. Some months elapse and she goes to claim the pension which her husband has contributed to and to which she is entitled by his contributions and by this Bill. Owing to the fact that three months have elapsed, her claim is disallowed. In a complicated Measure of
this kind many things may arise. There is the question of illness. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. S. Roberts) instanced the case of a person insured under the Health Insurance Acts, resident in Paris, being struck down by a serious illness, staying in Paris for over three months and then forfeiting his rights. A similar case might arise in exactly the same circumstances under this Act. and because of the lapse of three months a woman might find herself deprived of money to which she was entitled by the contributions of her husband, purely because of circumstances quite outside her control. It is always a difficult thing to fix a reasonable period, but three months seems unnecessarily short. I suggest that six months would meet the needs of the case
and would prevent any injustice. I think the Minister, having turned down the last Amendment, might, make this wry small concession. I do not believe it would interfere in any way with the financial calculations of the Act. It. would be very unfortunate if this Bill was to be based in its finance in any way on the supposition that many persons would fail to put in their claims within three months. I think this is a. very small concession, which would show that the right hon. Gentleman was desirous to meet all reasonable claims and to remove any possible sense of injustice.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
I wish to assure the right hon. Gentleman that whatever ho may think of our remarks on the previous occasion we are as earnest and as serious in moving this Amendment as we were on the last, and I hope it will meet with more sympathetic consideration. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether a legal right and a moral right can be terminated by a lapse of time of three months, or even for that matter of six months. What would he think of any ordinary insurance company if they attempted to repudiate their liabilities because a claim was not made within three months? In the light of our experience in dealing with the administration of pensions under the Ministry of Pensions and the Old Age Pensions Act, many of us must know of cases where there has been delay in making claims, and on account of that delay there has been great difficulty in getting payment. The right is there, whether the claim is made in three months or six months. In case of sickness, a considerable time may elapse beyond the three months, so that the claim cannot be made. In equity, I hope that the Minister will make this concession.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member who moved the Amendment admitted that on administrative grounds it is necessary to have some limitation to the time within which claims can be made. He suggests six months. We have put down three months. If we had put down six months, he would have suggested 12 months. It may well be a matter of opinion what should be the precise period to be inserted in the Bill. We have followed the precedent of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1911, which laid down the
period of three months, and I do not see why, and I have not heard any argument to show why, we should change that.

Mr. WESTWOOD: The point raised by the right hon. Gentleman does not answer the issue so far as this Bill is concerned. It is true that in the Old Age Pensions Act 1911, a period of three months was inserted. That was not a contributory scheme. This is a contributory scheme.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Does six months meet the case?

Mr. WESTWOOD: It would not meet all I would like to see, but six months would be quite as good as three months, and much better in certain cases. Take an aged couple, old age pensioners, who desire to visit a son or daughter in Australia. It will be impossible for that to be done without their losing the old age pension under this scheme. If six months were allowed, and three months were occupied in completing the return journey, that would give them a chance of spending three months with their children who have gone out to build up the Empire and to provide the currants and raisins on which Imperial preference is given. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, will realise that three months is too short a period. The party opposite have always claimed that they are the party who want to build up the Empire. They want to see the sons of Empire growing raisins in Australia, and some old people may wish to see their sons growing those raisins in Australia. On these and other grounds, I hope the Amendment will be accepted.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: There is only one point I would add to the excellent speech just delivered. The Old Age Pensions Act was a very simple Measure compared with this. It dealt with people who had reached the age of TO, whereas this Bill deals with widows, orphans and old age pensioners. I think the Parliamentary Secretary agrees with me on this matter, and I hope he will bring his powers of persuasion to bear upon his chief. The analogy is not complete. There is a very good case for making it six months instead of three. We are considering the time it takes to reach the. Antipodes and to come back, and three months is too short a time.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I support the Amendment. It is time that some protest was made against the habit which is growing up of establishing Statutes of Limitation in favour of the Government as against other classes of the community. The principal Statute of Limitations lays down six years as the period within which a debt may be recovered. That has been reduced in the case of ex-soldiers to three years, and now we have a proposal to have a Statute of Limitations against these old age pensioners with a period of three months. This gives an opportunity to the right hon. Gentleman to meet the arguments which he found it administratively impossible to meet before. Everything that could be adduced in favour of the previous Amendment can be adduced in favour of this, but the administrative difficulties which prevented the right hon. Gentleman from accepting the former Amendments do not operate to prevent him from accepting this Amendment. It is a

monstrous thing to have these old age pensioners who have paid for their pensions deprived of them after the period of three months. It is a debt due to them from the State, just as much as the pension given to the ex-Lord Chancellor is a debt due to him by the State, and he can go away to the South of France and spend three happy months there, while the old age pensioner who goes to visit his son is Canada is heavily mulcted by being deprived of the money which is duo to him from the State. The right hon. Gentleman should make the concession which is asked for. There is no defence on this point,. He had a better defence on the previous Amendment which, if it had not been for the very rigorous whip applied by my right hon. Friend, would have resulted in the defeat of the Government.

Question put, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 130.

Division No. 309.]
AYES.
[10.35 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Clarry, Reginald George
Gates, Percy


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James
T. Clayton, G. C.
Gibbs, Col Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gilmour, Lt.-Col, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. O.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Goff, Sir Park


Ashmead Bartlett, E.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gower, Sir Robert


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Cooper, A. Duff
Grace, John


Atholl, Duchess of
Couper, J. B.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Gretton, Colonel John


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Crook, C. W.
Grotrian, H. Brent


Balniel, Lord
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hall, Lieut.-Col, Sir F. (Dulwich)


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hammersley, S. S.


Betheil, A.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hanbury, C.


Betterton, Henry B.
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Harland, A.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Harrison, G. J. C.


Blundell, F. N.
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Harvey, G, (Lambeth, Kennington)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Harvey, Majors. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Haslam, Henry C.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hawke, John Anthony


Brass, Captain W.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Dixey, A. C.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxford, Henley)


Briggs, J. Harold
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Henderson. Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Briscoe, Richard George
Drewe, C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Elveden, Viscount
Henniker-Hushan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.


Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
England, Colonel A.
Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-W.)
Hilton, Cecil


Bullock, Captain M.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Burman, J. B.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fairfax, Capain J. G.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Butt, Sir Alfred
Palls, Sir Charles F.
Holt, Captain H. P.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Fielden, E. B.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Finburgh, S.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Forrest, W.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)


Christie, J. A.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Ganzoni, Sir John
Hudson, S. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Murchison, C. K.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Hurd, Percy A.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hurst, Gerald B.
Neville, R. J.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P bl's)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'd)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Nuttall, Ellis
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Oakley, T.
Storry Deans, R.


Jacob, A. E.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Jephcott, A. R.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Styles, Captain H. Walter


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Pennefather, Sir John
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Perring, William George
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Lamb, J. Q.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Philipson, Mabel
Waddington, R.


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Pielou, D. P.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Loder, J. de V.
Preston, William
Warrender, Sir Victor


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Radford, E. A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Raine, W.
Wells, S. R.


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Ramsden, E.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk, Peel
While, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Maclntyre, Ian
Rawson Alfred Cooper
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


McLean, Major A.
Rentoul, G. S.
Williams, Herbert G, (Reading)


Macmillan, Captain H.
Rice, Sir Frederick
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Rtchm'd)


Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Robarts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Ropner, Major L.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Wolmer, Viscount


Margesson, Captain D.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Womersley, W. J.


Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Rye, F. G.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Meller, R. J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. H. (Ayr)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts., Westb'y)
Wragg, Herbert


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley



Morden, Col. W. Grant
Shepperson, E. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)
Major Sir Harry Barnston and


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arther Clive
Skelton, A. N.
Major Cope.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grenfell, D. H. (Glamorgan)
March, S.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Montague, Frederick


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Groves, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Ammon, Charles George
Grundy, T. W.
Murnin, H.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Naylor, T. E.


Barnes, A.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Oliver, George Harold


Barr, J.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Paling, W.


Batey, Joseph
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hardie, George D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Broad, F. A.
Harney, E. A.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Bromley, J.
Harris, Percy A.
Potts. John S.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Purcell, A. A.


Cape, Thomas
Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Hougbton-le-Spring)


Charleton, H. C.
Hayes, John Henry
Riley, Ben


Clowes, S.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Ritson, J.


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Roberts. Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)


Compton, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Connolly, M.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hudson, J. H. (Hudderfield)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Dalton, Hugh
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Scrymgeour, E.


Day, Colonel Harry
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Dennison, R.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Duncan, C.
Kelly, W. T.
Sitch, Charles H.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kennedy, T.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smillie, Robert


Fenby, T. D.
Lansbury, George
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Lawson, John James
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lee, F.
Smith, Rennic (Penistone)


Gibbins, Joseph
Lindley, F. W.
Snell, Harry


Gillett, George M.
Lowth, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Greenall, T.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stamford, T. W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
MacLaren, Andrew
Stephen, Campbell




Sutton, J. E.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Taylor, R. A.
Warne, G. H.
Windsor, Walter


Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wright, W.


Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)


Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Thurtle, E.
Westwood, J.



Tinker, John Joseph
Whiteley, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Varley, Frank B.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Sir Godfrey Collins and Sir Robert


Viant, S. P.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Hutchison.


Wallhead, Richard C.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)



Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 23.—(Residential qualification of persons in respect of whose insurance pensions are payable.)

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 23, line 17, to have out the second "the," and to insert instead thereof the word "this."

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 24.—(Provisions against double pensions.)

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, in page 23, line 19, to leave out Sub-section (1).
I scarcely need to remind the House that this Amendment deals with the Clause under which the ex-service man who is receiving a pension, or his dependants who are receiving pensions, are excluded from the benefits of this Bill. There have been many reasons given during the discussions on this Bill for penalising people, but the last persons one would expect to see deprived of their pensions would be the ex-service men and their dependants. These people and their dependants are insurable people, and except for the fact that they are the parents of ex-service men, or receiving the pensions of ex-service men, they would receive the benefits of this Bill. As a matter of fact you can reduce the Clause to this, that the parents of ex-service men are penalised because they have given their sons for the country. In all respects they would receive the benefits of this Bill if it were not for the fact that they are receiving a pension in some other form. The arguments set forth in respect to the other Clauses tonight, and throughout the whole of the sitting, have been that these people have certain rights because they have paid for them. That applies to such people under this Clause, and under other Clauses.
I should like to point out the very amazing thing that has happened. We did understand from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech on the
Finance Bill, that at least under this Bill we were going to get rid of the means limit. As a matter of fact the old means limit is established under this Clause. There is a sub-section of the Clause which deals with necessity pensions, but the Clause deals with all kinds and grades of ex-service men's pensions. The right hon. Gentleman is going to take upon himself the power to make regulations, which means the old inquisition into the means of the parent, and above all things, the parents of ex-service men! There is no one in any quarter of the House who in their hearts could give support to the right hon. Gentleman for a Clause of this kind.
It may be said that they are going to get two pensions. I think the right hon. Gentleman himself suggested that, speaking generally, ex-service men receiving pensions would be excluded from the Bill. I again repeat that these people pay for their pension?. It does not matter how many pensions they are getting if they are paying for them! The fact of the matter is that the Government seem to me to have started out with this Bill under the illusion that it was a gift from the State. That idea has marked the discussions on the Bill. We have heard the word "dependant," and some are under the illusion that the State is giving something. The people themselves concerned have paid for what they have got. Why we are moving the omission of the first part of this Clause is in order to make sure that ex-service men and their dependants receive the pensions to which they are entitled. I think it would be quite to the point to read the view expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the Budget Speech upon this particular question. T thought it was one of the finest and most eloquent passages in a very eloquent speech. The Chancellor said:—
I would say that I like the association of this new scheme of widows' pensions, and pensions at 65 with the dying out of the cost of the war pensions. I like to think that the sorrow and the sacrifice and
the suffering have been the seed from which a strong tree would grow, under which perhaps many generations of British people may find shelter against some of the storms of life. It is by far the finest war memorial you can set up to those who gave their lives, their limbs, their blood, and who lost their health or dear ones in their country's cause."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April. l925; col. 83, Vol., 183.]
I submit to this House that no one, in face of a passage and sentiment of that kind, can vote against the exclusion of this Sub-section. It is going to rob the ex-service men and their dependants of than for which they are compelled to pay.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would like to say to hon. Members opposite who were ushered into the Lobby against their will one day last week, that few words of mine are necessary to emphasise the necessity for carrying this Amendment. It was said by Members from the opposite benches that the right hon. Gentleman was running the gauntlet when he endeavoured to secure a majority last week. His own supporters felt that something would be done between that day and the Report stage to appease the appetites of his own supporters. That has not happened, with the result that we find the Clause to-day just as it was prior to the Committee stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-street (Mr. Lawson) has indicated the general effect of the Clause. While one scarcely needs to repeat arguments submitted on the last occasion, I should like to draw attention to one or two typical cases. Take, for instance, a person who joined the Army and met with some injuries which cause permanent physical disability. He is receiving a life pension of somewhere in the "teens" of shillings to-day. He could he a contributor to this pensions scheme for 30 years, at the end of which you will tell him that his pension must be reduced in case his wife should be alive. But if his wife has passed before him, he is deprived of receiving any pension, although he has paid for 30 years. Implied in the Clause is not only a, desire on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to deprive this individual of pension for which he has paid, but there is also a penalty for having joined His Majesty's Forces and having done his best during that very critical period, suffered physical pain and permanent
physical disability. He is penalised far-having done so much for his country. If that is the real intention of the Government, if they are going to penalise ex-service men, we on these benches cannot agree with them, and will continue to support that section of the community which, rightly or wrongly, fought during the War and suffered physical disabilities as a result.
The right hon. Gentleman told the Committee, and particularly his own supporters, one day last week that unless they supported him in the Lobby against an attempt to throw out this Clause the Bill would be wrecked. He said the deletion of this Clause would cost the nation many millions of pounds, and the scheme could no longer be carried through. I would like to remind him that no one on this side of the House would wish to duplicate pensions such as those dealt with in Sub-sections (2), (3), (4), and even (5); but we do object to an ex-service man who is receiving a small permanent disability pension, and who will be compelled to contribute 4d. per week towards the pension scheme, being deprived of that to which he is justly entitled. Does any hon. Member say, also, that a woman who lost her son during the War, and is in receipt of a dependant's pension, should be placed at a disadvantage thereby? If the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues behind him can support that kind of thing, then all their statements in the past have been meaningless, like the statements of those hon. Gentlemen who supported an Amendment recently until it was carried to a Division and then found themselves in the wrong Lobby. This Clause, above all others, ought to be seriously amended or deleted in order to avoid injustices that are otherwise bound to happen.
May I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to paragraph (a). He will see by that paragraph that an ex-service man with a pension of 18s. a week will, on teaching the pensionable age, be entitled under the terms of this Clause to a pension of 1s. a week, and his wife will be entitled to a similar amount, though he may have been paying for the full pension of 10s. for 10, 20 or 30 years. I am sure that does not meet with the general approval of Members of this House, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be willing to say he will recon-
sider the whole thing and is prepared to do justice by making it possible for an ex-service man who has paid for a pension to receive it regardless of any other pension of which he may be in receipt.

11.0 P.M.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: When the House was in Committee with regard to this Bill a similar Amendment to that now proposed was brought up, and on that occasion I, and many other hon. Members supported that Amendment. We are now in the same position on the Report stage as during the Committee stage. The Clause as it stands leaves a certain amount of confusion in the minds of many hon. Members in this House as to what it involves, and I want to clear that up before I give my own opinion and explain the course which I propose to adopt. In the Bill there is an entirely new term made use of for the first time in connection with pensions. This is the phrase "service dependants' pensions." Clause 45 of the Bill gives a definition which brings into this Measure the question of war widows. The term "dependants' pensions" to which we have been accustomed since the War has nothing to do with widows. The dependants referred to are those parents who have lost a son in the War, and who are receiving a pension of one of three types. Either it is a pre-War pension, a flat-rate pension, or a necessitous need pension. They got this in return for the loss of their son. The arguments against this pension being touched or affected in any way by this new Bill are so obvious, and the logic of them is so irresistible, that I need not go into them again in detail. I think that whatever else may be provided for in this Bill, the right of the parents earned by the sacrifice of their sons in the War is one which should be almost sacrosanct.
The Bill as it stands provides that when these parents reach the age of 65 the pension they have won by the loss of their child will be telescoped into the old age pension which will become payable. Numerous cases must occur in which the pre-War pension or the flat-rate pension, drawn by the parents at present, would be in excess or equal to the pension they would draw under this Bill. We should then be face to face with a case of a contributor under this Bill from the present
day up to reaching the old-age limit, who would have paid precisely the same contributions as anybody else, and who because of the pension granted by the State for the death of his two sons, would not draw one penny during his lifetime for the contributions he had made to the contributory pensions fund. I am sure the House and the whole country will agree that such a state of affairs cannot be defended by any logic. The argument we were faced with in Committee was that this was to cost £4,000,000 a year. This was a staggering figure. What we were pressing for was (1) the omission of the telescoping of the disabled-man's pension, and (2) of the dependence pension. The sum of £4,000,000 mentioned by the Minister of Health did not seem to us a figure commensurate with the cost which would be thrown on the State by those two main concessions. We now understand that the £4,000,000 was calculated upon the inclusion of all war widows. The war widows are in a totally different position from those on whose behalf we were pressing our two main concessions. The men killed in the War were not contributing to the scheme, and the pension provided to their widows was an adequate provision by the State for their maintenance. The confusion brought in by the figure of £4,000,000 arose from the use of the new term "service dependence pension." We do not ask that war widows should, in addition to their present pension, receive a pension which other widows will get as the result of the contributions of their husbands. If the House will separate these two issues, the issue of the war widow and that of the dependant of the disabled man, we should be able to have a clear idea of what the House wishes and what. I am sure, the country also wishes.
I now come to the question, how have we to act in view of the Amendment? I remember that when the House was in Committee, before I spoke, there were many taunts directed at us from Members of the Labour party, that we had not the courage of our convictions. We were not afraid of those taunts, but we did become a trifle timid when to those taunts there succeeded an invitation from the Liberal benches to agree to the deletion of the Clause so that the Government might
substitute something else. The source was, we thought, a little tainted. I hope we shall not be given that advice again to-night. Yet as the Clause stands, and unless something is done to meet the case of these dependants' pensions, unless something quite clear and unmistakable is put into the Bill, it is difficult to see what other course any of us on this side would have save to clear the way, even in spite of the advice from the benches opposite, for some other Amendment which we would have to propose. I half expected that an Amendment would be put on the Paper by Labour Members. Possibly they might make the taunt, in reply, that they expected that we would put down an Amendment. The reason why we did not do so was that all on this side of the House realise that the case has only to be made clear to the Treasury Bench for that bench to act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I welcome those cheers from Labour Members as showing that the confidence we have in the Treasury Bench is shared by them. We believe-that if this case is made clear, even now at this eleventh hour, the right hon. Gentleman will find some way of introducing an Amendment which will meet the views I have expressed. It is in that hope that I do not propose to say how I shall vote should this Amendment be pressed to a Division. But I do ask Members on all sides who follow me to advance arguments more cogent and eloquent than mine, and to bring pressure to bear on the Minister so that he may be induced to bring in an Amendment from the point of view which I have endeavoured to express.

Mrs. PHILIPSON: I want to support whole-heartedly all that has been said by the last speaker. Knowing the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, I feel sure that he will amend this Clause. If I read the Clause rightly, it means that a mother in receipt of 5s. a week pension for the son whom she has given in the War, will have to forfeit that pension when she is in receipt of an old age pension. I know that the hon. and gallant Member for North St. Pancras (Captain Fraser)— I say this in case he does not get a chance to speak—is whole-heartedly with us, as are several other hon. Members. I feel sure that the Minister will do something to help these mothers who have lost their
sons in the War. Five shillings a week will not bring the sons back, and it is the duty of the Government to give a helping hand.

Lieut.-Colonel HENDERSON: I would like, in a few words, to support what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Dumfries (Brigadier-General Charteris). I was one of those who did go so far as to express myself on the Committee stage with regard to this particular Clause. As one who has interested himself in the question of pensions and ex-service men ever since he came into the House, it is a question in which I feel very strongly. Most of us on the Conservative side of the House were not exercised in the Committee stage on the question of the ex-service man, because most of us realised that the disabled ex-service man, as far as pension is concerned, is not brought into the Bill. His pension is not included or assessed for the purpose of this Bill. The Sub-section on which we divided in the Committee stage was one with regard to dependant's pensions. T quite appreciate what the Minister has paid about need pensions and war widows: but there are two other classes of War dependants, the ox-service man's dependant who is drawing a pre-War dependance pension and the dependant who is drawing a flat-rate pension; and they are in an entirely different category. The maximum pension that parents may receive under one heading is 40s. and on an average it works out at about 9s. In the case of the flat rate, and if two or more sons are killed, you get a maximum of 20s. In the Clause under discussion the pension that is payable is divided by half for the purpose of assessment where both parents are alive. At the age of 56 a man might be easily paying a contribution towards a pension for his widow for 10 years or five years and then, if he dies before his wife becomes 65, his wife would only get the difference between what she is getting from the Pensions Ministry and what she is entitled to receive, and, if she is getting the maximum, she would get nothing at all. The same rule is applicable with regard to old age pensions. I think it is absolutely indefensible to suggest that you are going to ask people, who have already sacrificed a great deal in losing their children in the War, to
contribute towards a scheme for 10 or 15 years, on the distinct understanding that at the end of those 10 or 15 years they cannot possibly get anything at all. I cannot understand anybody being able to get up and defend a proposal of that kind. Therefore, for that reason, I hope that the Minister will reconsider this question of the dependants of ex-service men, because I really think there is a genuine case of hardship which calls for some rectification.

Sir JOHN PENNEFATHER: I believe that a great deal of confusion still exists in the minds of Members of the House in regard to this Bill. I have been endeavouring for some days past to get explanations of what the Bill really does mean, and I confess that every explanation I have heard has left me still more confused. That being the case, I feel compelled to suspend judgment until I hear what the Government are really going to do. If I understand the Rill rightly, it might—I do not say it would —have the effect of placing the dependants of ex-service men at a disadvantage compared with the other contributors insured under this Bill. If the dependants of ex-service men are under this Bill, as it finally becomes law, placed at a disadvantage as compared with other persons who have not made the same sacrifice and who have contributed no more, then I should have no option but to vote against the Bill. But I cannot conceive that the Government intend anything so unjust, and, therefore, I still hope and believe that they will, before we part with the Bill, make some statement or put in some Clause or Amendment which will make it quite clear that those who have doubted thorn are wrong, and those who, like myself, are prepared to trust them are right, and by that means will enable us to have the satisfaction of continuing to 6upport them solidly in the Lobby.

Captain FRASER: I do not desire to take up the time of the House for more than two or three minutes, because I am quite certain that it is unnecessary in any way to go over the many arguments that have been so forcibly brought forward in the last Debate and to-night, but before the Minister replies I want to ask him if it is possible for him to answer one question which presents very
great difficulties to me. It is quite clear, as was stated by the hon. and gallant Member for Bootle (Lieut.-Colonel Henderson), that, where a need pension is under consideration, it may be quite appropriate for the State to take away from the pensioner some portion of the money that is being received, if adequate benefit is being paid out, let us say, from another Department. It might be quite proper for the Ministry of Pensions to diminish a need pension as and when a contributory pension becomes payable, if in fact the need was diminished or ceased to exist. But it does not seem to me proper or logical to diminish or in any way curtail the contributory pension, which is, I understand, what is being done. I would ask the Minister if it is possible for him to explain why he cannot allow a person to receive the contributory pension to which he or she is obviously entitled, and make whatever deduction appears fair, if such deduction be fair, from another source when this contributory pension has been paid. With regard to the general question of pensions which have been earned, I can only say that the position I take up is precisely that of the last speaker. I am hopeful, particularly after the concession which the right hon. Gentleman made at a late hour in Committee last week, he may be able to make some statement to-night which will satisfy us and make it possible for us to give him our whole-hearted support. I should hesitate very strongly to fail to give my whole-hearted support because I am not of the opinion that any other Government would have done as well.

Captain MACMILLAN: The hon. Members who moved and seconded the Amendment did not seem to me to throw a clear light on the situation in which we are placed, and indeed the hon. Member who seconded succeeded in increasing the darkness, because he devoted some of his remarks to a discussion of how an ex-service man drawing a disability pension would be affected by this proviso. That is unfortunate, because he will not be affected in any way at all. However, since the moving and the seconding of the Amendment a great deal more light has been thrown on the subject. As I understand the matter, the Amendment cannot command the serious support of any Member of the House, because
if it were carried in its present form the effect would be to bring in to the orbit of additional pensions the whole number of the War widows and the future war widows of future wars. It was that which certainly made up, in our opinion, the greater part of the very large sum of £4,000,000 which is mentioned as the probable cost of the Amendment as it stands. After all, there is clearly no case for giving the additional pension of 10s. a week to the War widow who is already receiving a pension. Therefore there is no real case that he has a grievance under Clause 24 (1). She does not have a claim as a contributor to this pension scheme, because she is expressly excluded from it, and to that extent the case for the Amendment falls to the ground. In regard to the widows of future wars, the present serving soldier is coming into this scheme on very favourable terms. The contributions paid for him or in respect of him are low compared to the contributions paid by civilians.
But there is a very strong and a very real case in regard to those persons who have already been mentioned, that is to say, the people who are drawing their service dependants' pensions in respect of son or sons. Those service dependants' pensions fall into three categories. First, there is the pre-war dependants' pension reckoned according to the amount contributed by that son or sons to the parent. Then there is the need pension and the flat rate pension. With regard to the need pension the case is already met in the Clause as it stands, but with regard to the flat rate pension, and the pre-War dependants' pension, if this Clause is allowed to stand there will, in my opinion, be a grave injustice done to a class of persons, that is the parents of sons killed in the War who might be for many years contributors to this scheme without the prospect and in some cases without even the possibility of drawing any benefits in return for their contributions. Therefore, while I would most certainly not vote for the Amendment as it stands, I hope the Minister will not be able to exclude from the operation of Sub-section (1) the parent whose son or sons have been killed in the War and in respect of whose death they are drawing service dependants' pensions. I hope he will do so for two reasons:
First, because it is the general view of this House that there can be no category of persons in respect of whom we should be more unwilling to commit any injustice; and, secondly, for the very strong reason, also, that a provision of this kind tends to throw discredit upon the whole of the contributory idea. The contributory idea is the basis of this scheme, and it is the contributory idea that this Bill is going to establish in the country.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Debate that has taken place on this Amendment has served this extremely useful purpose, that it has clarified the situation. Looking back upon the Debate that took place in Committee upon this Clause, I do not think that the atmosphere was by any means clear, and I am sure that a number of those who took part in that Debate were not completely acquainted with what are the actual effects of the Bill. That confusion seems to remain even today among some hon. Members opposite. The speech to which we have just listened has summed up the situation as it appears in respect of the real grievance, the real injustice, which has been described and which a great number of hon. Members desire that we should remedy. It is obvious that I cannot accept the Amendment in the form in which it stands. It would mean a cost of between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000. But it has been represented to me— and I confess I feel the force of the argument—that, particularly in cases where parents are receiving pensions in respect of a son or sons killed on active service, and where the father of such dead son or sons is in insurable employment and is paying contributions, that it is not right and it is not even consistent with the underlying principles of this Bill that he should be forced to pay these contributions when it may be that it is impossible for him ever to derive any benefits. I confess that I feel that that is a very strong case, but I am afraid it is a very expensive case. It is going, if I meet the point, to add a very serious sum to the charge upon the Exchequer, but in view of the fact that it is now half-past eleven, I think the House will not take it amiss if I suggest that they should give me a few hours to consider the matter, and if I can find a way to meet the case that has been put up. I can make a statement upon it when we resume the proceedings
to-morrow. That is a course which I think would be best for the House, best for the people whom we want to serve, and, incidentally, best for the Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] As that idea seems to command general assent, I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — PROTECTION OF ANIMALS BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time"—[Mr. H. Williams.]

It being after Eleven of the Clock and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-eight Minutes before Twelve o'clock.